02/09/2018 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB129 | |
| HB315 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 315 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 9, 2018
1:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Acting Vice Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative David Eastman
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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."
- MOVED CSHB 129(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 315
"An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain records on
animals and crops; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 316
"An Act relating to the sealing of certain court records;
restricting the publication of certain records of convictions on
a publicly available website; relating to public records; and
amending Rule 37.6, Alaska Rules of Administration."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 129
SHORT TITLE: FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/15/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/15/17 (H) RES, JUD
03/29/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/29/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/31/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/31/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/03/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/03/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/03/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/05/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/05/17 (H) Moved CSHB 129(RES) Out of Committee
04/05/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/07/17 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) 6DP 3NR
04/07/17 (H) DP: BIRCH, PARISH, WESTLAKE, DRUMMOND,
TARR, JOSEPHSON
04/07/17 (H) NR: TALERICO, JOHNSON, RAUSCHER
01/29/18 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/29/18 (H) Heard & Held
01/29/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/31/18 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/31/18 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/05/18 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/05/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/05/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/07/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/07/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/07/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/09/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 315
SHORT TITLE: CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL & CROP RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/26/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/18 (H) JUD, RES
02/09/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
NOAH STARR, Staff
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 129, answered
questions regarding Amendment 1.
BRUCE DALE, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 129, answered
questions regarding Amendment 3.
MAJOR BERNARD CHASTAIN, Deputy Director
Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 129, answered
questions regarding Amendment 3.
NATALIE WEBER, Regulations Program Coordinator
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 129, answered
questions regarding Amendment 3.
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 315, presented a
PowerPoint presentation titled, "HB 315: Confidentiality of
Animal and Crop Records" and answered questions.
DR. BOB GERLACH
State Veterinarian
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 315, testified and
answered questions.
BRYCE WRIGLEY
Alaska Farm Bureau
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 315, testified in
support of the legislation.
ARTHUR KEYES, Director
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 315, answered
questions.
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 513, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:01:43 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. Representatives Claman, Eastman,
Stutes (alternate for Representative Fansler), Kreiss-Tomkins
(acting as Vice Chair), were present at the call to order.
Representatives Kopp, LeDoux, Millett (alternate for
Representative Reinbold) arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 129-FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES
1:02:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first 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."
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that subsequent to the meeting of 2/7/18,
the Department of Administration (DOA) submitted an updated
indeterminate fiscal note.
1:03:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1,
Version 30-GH1687\D.1, Bullard, 1/30/18, which read as follows:
Page 5, line 14, following "subsection":
Insert ", as adjusted for inflation as provided
in (d) of this section,"
Page 5, line 27:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 6, following line 3:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) Beginning July 1, 2023, and every five
years thereafter, the department shall recalculate and
update by regulation the restitution amounts provided
in (b) of this section to adjust for inflation, based
on a formula provided by the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, reflecting the change in the
Consumer Price Index for the Anchorage metropolitan
area compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
United States Department of Labor, rounded to the
nearest $50 increment."
Page 7, line 13:
Delete "2017"
Insert "2018"
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected.
1:03:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS advised that Amendment 1 adjusts
the restitution amounts within CSHB 129, which are belatedly
adjusted for inflation after 30-odd years, to be adjusted for
inflation every 5-years, out into the future. Thereby, he said,
the amounts will keep pace with economics and not become
outdated as they have, which has been part of the cause for "the
meat of this bill."
1:04:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the amendment references
"based on a formula" and requested a description of the formula.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS opined that the formula is that
which the Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD)
uses to calculates inflation every year. While he does not know
the inputs to the formula, he said he does know that this is a
metric used in law for many of the state's administrative
functions, and he described it as a "common CPI formula."
1:05:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there is a cap on how high
these fees could be raised based on the formula.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS responded that he did not believe
there was a cap because consumer price increase (CPI) over a 5-
year period is approximately 4.5 percent, the restitution
amounts would increase 4.5 percent. He opined that there would
not be anything that limits the amount the restitution would
increase because it would be tied to inflation, and if inflation
runs away, the corresponding increase would also be there as
well.
1:06:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether his reading was correct in
that this formula says, "$25 and a penny" and that will bump it
up to a $50 increase.
1:06:57 PM
NOAH STARR, Staff, Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska State
Legislature, responded that it would be rounded up to the
nearest $50 increment.
1:07:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that his initial thought was
that this deals with some fairly large figures here and there
could be fines up to $25,000, even without an increase in
inflation. He offered concern that if these formulas work
automatically, the legislature might be lax in its attention and
it may go even longer than the 30-years. Potentially, he said,
there could be large fees that the legislature should approve
before the fees go into effect.
1:08:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered concern for Amendment 1, noting that
for any type of bail schedule or fee schedule printing or
training, the more those issues can be standardized and stay the
same is certainly better from an enforcement perspective or, in
this case, a restitution perspective. Secondly, he said, the
numbers amended with this bill have not been amended for at
least two decades or longer, and the department offered the
committee a number it believed would be reflective, not just for
5-years, but this would be "good to go" for some time. He
opined that it would take some of the fluidity out of the law
and make it easier to track over time, both from a training,
printing, and updating method if the legislation was left as
presented to the committee by the department.
1:10:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
1:10:32 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins,
LeDoux, Stutes, and Claman voted in favor of the adoption of
Amendment 1, Version 30-GH1687\D.1. Representatives Kopp,
Millett, and Eastman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1
was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
1:11:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 2, Version 30-
GH1687\D.5, Bullard, 2/8/18, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 31, through page 3, line 2:
Delete "as provided in AS 12.55 [BY A FINE OF NOT
MORE THAN $1,000, OR BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN
SIX MONTHS, OR BY BOTH]"
Insert "by a fine of not more than $5,000
[$1,000], or by imprisonment for not more than six
months, or by both"
Page 4, lines 12 - 14:
Delete "punishable as provided in AS 12.55 [, AND
UPON CONVICTION IS PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE
THAN $5,000, OR BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE
YEAR, OR BY BOTH]"
Insert ", and [UPON CONVICTION] is punishable by
a fine of not more than $10,000 [$5,000], or by
imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both"
Page 6, lines 9 - 11:
Delete "[AND, UPON CONVICTION, IS] punishable as
provided in AS 12.55 [BY A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN $100
NOR MORE THAN $500]"
Insert "and [, UPON CONVICTION,] is punishable by
a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000
[$500]"
Page 6, lines 25 - 27:
Delete "[AND IS] punishable as provided in
AS 12.55 [BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR
OR BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR BY BOTH]"
Insert "and is punishable by imprisonment for not
more than one year or by a fine of not more than
$10,000 [$5,000], or by both"
Page 7, lines 2 - 5:
Delete "[, AND UPON CONVICTION IS] punishable as
provided in AS 12.55 [BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE
THAN SIX MONTHS, OR BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $1,000,
OR BY BOTH]"
Insert ", and [UPON CONVICTION] is punishable by
imprisonment for not more than six months, or by a
fine of not more than $5,000 [$1,000], or by both"
1:11:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX advised that the $25,000 figure the
department changed for misdemeanors, appeared to be a bit too
high for misdemeanors. Particularly, she offered, when these
are misdemeanors against the people that the department would
probably be able to collect money, so she changed the amount.
1:11:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what is the highest fee that would
be assessed under Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that the highest fee assessed
under the amendment would be $10,000.
1:12:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether Representative LeDoux had
received any feedback from the Alaska Wildlife Troopers or
anyone else regarding Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX answered that she had not, and added that
the administration, when going over this bill with her office
staff, did not mention the change from ... "that there was going
to be a now $25,000 fine."
1:13:14 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that he understands Representative
LeDoux's concern in that if there is a potential $25,000 fine
limit on a class A misdemeanor, the folks charged with fish and
wildlife violations may be one of the small number of folks in
the state being fined at that higher level. From his personal
experience in dealing with a few fish and wildlife criminal
cases over the years, those cases tend to be plea negotiated and
worked out in advance, he advised. In that regard, he did not
see much potential in someone would receiving a $25,000 fine
that "they didn't actually decide was their choice to embrace
for a variety of reasons." He added that he likes the idea of
greater uniformity in the statute rather than many exceptions.
While, he understands the concerns, he will be a no-vote on
Amendment 2 even though it is an important issue and he was glad
it was before the committee, he commented.
1:14:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES removed her objection. There being no
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
1:15:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, Version 30-
GH1687\D.4, Bullard, 2/8/18, which read as follows:
Page 2, following line 26:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 16.05.340(a)(6) is amended to read:
(6) Resident hunting, trapping, and sport
fishing license .................. 75;
(A) however, the fee is $5 for an applicant
who has an annual
family or household income equal to or less than the
most recent poverty guidelines for the state set by
the United States Department of Health and Human
Services for the year preceding application;
(B) a person paying $5 for a resident
hunting, trapping, and sport fishing license shall
[MUST] provide proof of eligibility under this
paragraph when purchasing [REQUESTED BY] the license
[DEPARTMENT]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected.
1:16:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the handout received from the
department regarding the numbers from 2017, [document
unavailable], depicting that approximately [18,594] low-income
licenses were sold in Alaska. The difference between a regular
license and a low-income license is that it moves from $94 to
$5, with a $90 difference. He remarked that a number of
concerns were raised over the fact that there is no verification
for this $90 license discount, where basically, a person goes to
a clerk at Walmart and requests a low-income hunting or fishing
license wherein the person's signature represents their
qualification, and they pay $5. There is no verification to
that process resulting in a of significant amount of revenue not
going to the state. The concerns are that much of those
discounts are given to people who do not qualify and because
there is no verification at the time of purchase, the Alaska
State Troopers are required to follow up with questions as to
how they qualify, which puts a burden on the troopers. He
suggested that if the verification was in place, the troopers
would not have to follow up with questions. This amendment
encourages the department to ensure that there is some
verification which could be as simple as showing their
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) card or proof
of SNAP eligibility to the clerk when purchasing a license, and
significantly reduce the number of licenses sold fraudulently.
Currently, he said, the revenue that was lost if "we're talking
about people paying the full price," was over $1.6 million last
year. Except, he advised, it is actually a much larger number
because for every dollar spent on hunting or fishing licenses,
the state receives a 3-to-1 federal match. Therefore, the
amount of the foregone revenue for the state last year was
actually over $6.6 million if those licenses had been purchased
at the full price. While, he said, the legislature does want
people to continue to qualify for the low-income $5 license, it
is important they verify that they actually do qualify rather
than simply being on the honor system.
1:19:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to Representative Eastman's
testimony that verifying a license was a burden to the Alaska
State Troopers and asked whether he had anything to show the
committee with which the troopers report that it is a burden.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised that his office was in contact
with some of the troopers and the policy is that if the troopers
encounter a low-income license, they are required to ask
questions and determine whether the person qualifies. He
acknowledged that it is not an exhaustive investigation, but the
troopers are required to "probe a little bit."
1:20:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to Representative Eastman's
testimony that there seems to be fraud and asked whether he had
any evidence of fraud, and where he received that information.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that currently there are no
verifications so there is no way of demonstrating the amount of
fraud that takes place, "but we do hear from a number of people
that those licenses are oftentimes being abused."
1:20:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked Representative Eastman to describe the
sufficient proof of eligibility when purchasing a low-income
license at Fred Meyer, and other entities.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that currently, the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) ensures that people match the
income eligibility for various state programs. In that regard,
he said, if a person qualifies under one of those programs it
would match the requirement for verification.
1:21:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to a person eligible for a SNAP
card, and asked whether their income must be equal to, or less
than, the most recent poverty guidelines, or whether they are
eligible if they are over the poverty guidelines.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that the limits on poverty are
established federally, and usually the state establishes some
percentage based on those federal poverty guidelines that change
from time to time. In the event a person qualifies for the SNAP
program, he opined that the person is "pretty close to whatever
income requirements you're signing off on from the department."
He commented that this is a good question and, following the
passage of Amendment 3, he would like to see the department give
some attention that issue to verify the information is current
and that it actually matches.
CHAIR CLAMAN listed the individuals on line from the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) available to testify.
1:23:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what sort of burden this might put
on the vendors because it sounds like a good idea. When
purchasing a license, there should be some requirement to show
the applicant is low-income, and she does not want to overly
burden the vendors, she said.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that the folks from the Department of Fish
& Game (ADF&G) could respond.
1:24:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether 18,594 licenses were received in
2017.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered in the affirmative.
CHAIR CLAMAN (audio difficulties) person paying $5 must provide
proof of eligibility under this paragraph when requested by the
department. He asked whether it was the ADF&G and not the
person at the Walmart counter.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered in the affirmative.
1:25:10 PM
BRUCE DALE, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said he could speak to part
of Representative LeDoux's question, but Major Chastain would be
a better person to respond. In terms of the burden on the
vendor, currently they have to sign that "they accept the
license" (audio difficulties.) He explained that showing
verification would not be a great burden on the vendor because
it would be similar to the hunter showing their driver's
license. The suitable piece of verification would have to be
clear and standardized so there was no mistaking the proper
verifications and the improper verifications, he stressed. Many
people purchase through e-vendors online and those people would
have to click a certification box or they would not be able to
purchase online. He then deferred to Major Bernard Chastain,
Department of Public Safety (DPS).
1:27:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there would be any online
purchase verifications that the applicant actually did fall
under the poverty line, other than a mere certification box.
She further asked whether a SNAP card has a number on it wherein
each person could input their SNAP number.
MR. DALE said was not familiar with what is on the SNAP card,
and that the ADF&G would need to modify its programs to
accommodate that entry of verification. He explained that when
the applicant buys their license, they sign and certify that
they do meet the criteria for the $5 license.
1:29:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled a Senate election a few years ago
wherein one of the candidates, who had graduated from law
school, had one of these licenses. She opined that there is the
possibility of fraud when a person does not have to provide any
proof of eligibility when purchasing the license, and it leaves
a big loop hole. She asked how much it would cost the ADF&G to
change its program if Amendment 3 were adopted.
MR. DALE advised that he could not answer that question at this
time.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Major Bernard Chastain whether, under the
state's current statutory scheme, in the event he was qualified
for the low-income license he would have the three following
choices: show proof of eligibility at a Division of Alaska
Wildlife Troopers office; go online and check a box that said he
was eligible for this discounted license; or go to an entity
that sold licenses and simply check the box stating he was
eligible. He asked whether, under this amendment, all
applicants would have to show proof of eligibility.
1:30:52 PM
MAJOR BERNARD CHASTAIN, Deputy Director, Division of Alaska
Wildlife Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), responded
that currently, there is an affidavit on the back of the vendor
copy of the license requiring the applicant to sign claiming
they qualify for the reasons set in statute. The passage of
"the fish and game bill last year" removed a portion out of AS
16.05.340 and it read that someone would qualify if they
received something "to aid indigent." He referred to Amendment
3, [Version D.4, AS 16.05.340(a)(6), page 1, lines 4-8] and
advised that the person must at least meet below the recent
poverty guidelines set by the United States Department of Health
and Human Services and, he opined, it is a poverty guideline
based upon income. He explained that as far as the actual
enforcement of the statute, when an applicant signs the
affidavit on the back of the license claiming they qualify, the
actual crime is false statement on a license application. He
pointed out that showing proof of qualification would require an
applicant to show proof that they qualified at the time of
purchase to whomever is the vendor, which would include Chair
Claman's examples, as well as checking a box online claiming
they qualify. Although, he remarked, there would be potential
problems with the online purchases of licenses in that scenario
because the applicant would not actually be showing proof and
would simply check a box and sign the license when they receive
it. There would be some question about what the proof would be
when someone came in to purchase the license, and what document
they would have to have to show that they actually met the
poverty guidelines, he said.
1:33:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she did not know how many
years this program had been in existence and asked the number of
people that had been prosecuted when offering improper
information.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that he does not have the exact
numbers, but the division successfully prosecutes people who are
not honest on these types of licenses each year. It is not a
burden for the Alaska Wildlife Troopers because they already
check licenses in the field for this situation, and for people
who claim false residency. While he does not have the exact
number of people cited and prosecuted each year, it does include
an investigation into whether the person qualifies.
1:34:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked the sort of questions an Alaska
Wildlife Troopers may ask someone when suspicious, how does the
trooper determine whether someone met that standard, or at least
met that standard when purchasing the license.
MAJOR CHASTAIN answered that the troopers ask a few questions
when suspicious to determine whether they need to conduct a
further investigation into a potential crime. For example, a
trooper may ask, "How do you qualify for this license," and if
the person says they qualify because they fall below the federal
poverty guidelines, "we're done." In the event the person does
not know how they qualify for that license, there might be a
further investigation.
1:35:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification that even though
the person is outfitted in expensive gear, if a trooper asks how
they qualify for a license and they say they are under the
federal poverty guideline, "that's it?"
MAJOR CHASTAIN replied that it depends upon the totality of the
situation, if the troopers are suspicious of the answer in any
manner, there may be a further investigation to determine
whether they qualify. He offered that one way to determine the
person's qualification is how much income they make in a year,
which requires more investigation because it includes a
household income. In this situation, there may be other factors
to consider, such as a spouse or other people living in a
household that would meet that qualification to meet this
statute, he said.
1:37:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that she thought Major Chastain had
testified that they ask the person how they qualify for the
reduce rate and if they say they meet the federal poverty
guidelines "that's it." She asked whether she misunderstood
Major Chastain statement because now it appears he is talking
about the totality of the circumstances which seems somewhat
different than if the person says they met the income standards,
they are finished.
MAJOR CHASTAIN acknowledged that he did say that because this is
a sensitive issue when it comes to asking people about their
household income. In these situations, the troopers have been
directed to use their law enforcement experience to determine
whether someone was being truthful, and many factors go into
that decision.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that one would hope if a person drove up
in a fancy new boat with a brand-new engine and had a poverty
license, the trooper would be skeptical.
1:38:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether this is a significant
problem for the Department of Public Safety (DPS).
MAJOR CHASTAIN answered that the DPS does not have many of these
problems per year, although he does not have the exact numbers.
He added that the troopers deal far more with residency-related
cases than in low-income licenses.
1:39:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES referred to Representative Eastman's
statement that he had "several complaints" and asked who had
offered these complaints because Representative Eastman had
arbitrarily said that this is a problem. She pointed out that
this issue did not sound like it really was a significant
problem.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised that it is a difficult problem to
measure because when measuring prosecutions there are not many.
The problem becomes, how to get to the level of prosecution when
the state is basically taking someone's honor that they qualify.
He advised that the concerns brought to him from some members of
the department "anecdotally saying that they do believe this is,
in fact, a significant problem, and others as well."
1:40:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked to which department he was
referring.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded, "I was specifically referring
to conversations I've had, in some cases, Public Safety.
1:40:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Major Chastain how difficult it
would be to change the application because currently, there is
an affidavit to sign and attest to the truth of "what you're
applying for" as far as residency, and she assumed that would
work for income verification levels. She asked what type of re-
tooling would be necessary for the department to make this work.
MAJOR CHASTAIN deferred to the Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G).
MR. DALE deferred to Natalie Weber.
1:42:20 PM
NATALIE WEBER, Regulations Program Coordinator, Division of
Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
responded that there are a couple of different options if
modifying its software to implement this change, as follows: the
first change would be dependent upon access to an electronic
database of annual gross income amounts - possibly a database
managed by another department - under that scenario the license
would be issued electronically by "our electronic" vendor system
or the internet, and it would basically be used to verify
eligibility, and the issuance of a license would be based on a
positive match with the database; and absent access to an
electronic database, actual staff would be required to match
whatever information the customer provided with one of the other
agencies responsible for maintaining that list. She commented
that there would definitely be issues to work through; however,
it could be accomplished.
1:43:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to Representative Eastman's
testimony that for those falsely claiming to be low-income, the
state was losing matching fund dollars. She requested the
actual formula for fishing licenses, and how that works.
MS. WEBER advised that the license dollars are eligible for a
federal match and if this money does not go to the department,
ADF&G loses out on the federal match dollars as a result.
1:44:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked that in the event Amendment
3 was adopted, what was the likelihood this bill would receive a
fiscal note in order to implement the online component of
Amendment 3, within the various scenarios she had described.
MS. WEBER said that she could not answer that question right
now.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether costs or fiscal
impacts would be involved in the database matching she had
described.
MS. WEBER deferred to Mr. Dale.
1:45:42 PM
MR. DALE answered that there would be a small fiscal note but he
was unsure whether the small cost would actually require a
fiscal note because the department is in the process of making
some of those software changes and this would be another task
added to those efforts. The other factors in terms of cost to
consider is, if the burden of proof that was required was not
clear enough, or it was varied in its manner, that would
probably be a burden to the purchaser.
It might also preclude the folks at the stores (audio
difficulties) vendors, and if these licenses cannot be sold
through vendors, the people would probably opt out of the
system. He offered that the department has always preferred to
make the licenses as assessible as possible so people could be
in the system, the department could manage the resources better,
and that they rely on the Alaska State Troopers for enforcement.
1:47:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS described that one of the
scenarios would be cross-referencing the databases of gross
income in order to determine whether people were below the
poverty line. He asked whether such a database exists in
Alaska.
MR. DALE replied that he was certain that "neither of us can
answer that."
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether he was aware of the
existence of such a database.
MR. DALE answered that he was not aware of such a database.
1:48:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the 18,594 low-income
licenses sold and asked the total number of non-low-income
licenses sold in calendar year 2017 for resident licenses.
MR. DALE offered that he did not know the number off-hand and
opined that there were 140,000 total licenses.
MS. WEBER responded that she did not have the 2017 license
information with her; however, the department website cites that
for resident hunting licenses there were upwards of 300,000
issued in 2016.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that "a spreadsheet"
[handed to Representative Kreiss-Tomkins from the committee
aide] indicated that the number was just shy of 200,000
residential licenses.
1:50:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to the 18,594 low-income
licenses figure and asked whether it was Mr. Dale's view there
is widespread abuse on this program because it sounded like
there could be some money the Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
could use.
MR. DALE answered that he does not believe there is widespread
abuse due to his personal experiences and distributing (indisc)
licenses in rural Alaska and occasionally in Fairbanks, "awhile
back." He offered that he does not believe most people want to
cheat and they certainly do not want to necessarily brag about
their low-income, but there are no statistics.
1:51:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that the maker of Amendment 3
testified, without naming names, that he was told by the Alaska
Wildlife Troopers this is a problem. Chair Claman asked whether
it was the department's perspective that abuse is a problem in
terms of people taking advantage of the low-income hunting,
fishing, and trapping license option.
MR. DALE responded that he is only able to present his opinion
because he did not ask for the statistics and stated that he
does not believe abuse is widespread, as Major Chastain had
testified to earlier, and that falsifying residency is a much
larger problem.
1:52:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT commented that Amendment 3 is reasonable
because low-income folks do have verification readily available,
whether it is low income certificates, SNAP card, WIC card, or
reduced grocery certificates. She asked whether this amendment
is broad enough that the department could write the regulation
and give it the authority to accept various forms of those
significant verifications.
1:54:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that, while she would like to
believe most people are honest, she believes it helps people to
be honest when they have to provide verification with their
statements. She said that she suspects people probably take
advantage of the program whether or not the abuse is widespread,
and to write a regulation wherein the vendors simply review the
verification. She commented that in the event someone is to
receive a benefit, there should be some proof they are eligible
for that benefit.
1:55:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented that she has a difficult time
with Amendment 3 because she does believe most people are
honest, and that this is another layer of bureaucracy. She then
compared it to the some of the programs that support people who
are clearly able to work and are not working. She reiterated
that she has a hard time supporting Amendment 3, particularly
when the department believes it is not really a problem.
1:56:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that he was unsure this
is a problem that requires a solution. He commented that he
will speak with some of the clerks around his hometown as to
their impression whether there is a perception of abuse. He
acknowledged that he was unaware that low-income licenses
existed in Alaska which shows that "I live in a hole" or people
are not bragging about it if they are abusing the system. He
pointed out that he could not see how this could work with an
online component, and that the online eligibility verification
and that non-existing database needs to be flushed out a bit
more than this 20 minutes of committee discussion. His
impression, he offered, is "maybe catching ADF&G a little bit
flat footed." He related that the policy mechanics need to be
worked out, particularly with the online side of things, and he
would be a no-vote on Amendment 3.
1:58:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that he supports Amendment 3
because it is reasonable.
1:58:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that he echoes Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins comments because he has real concerns as to whether
abuse is a problem, and that Amendment 3 is a solution in search
of a problem that does not exist. He reminded the committee of
the testimonies from the Alaska Wildlife Troopers and that
prosecutions for false residency takes place with some
frequency. He noted that he is troubled by this amendment
because it puts the burden on the people issuing the licenses,
whether it is Walmart, Alaska Mill and Feed, or different stores
specializing more in hunting and fishing. He noted that certain
vendors have expressed unhappiness with the new federal
government requirements put on folks selling firearms, and "how
unhappy they are feeling like they are policing this deal for
purchasing firearms." He said that he does not like the idea
without having had a more detailed vetting with more input from
vendors and the department. The department itself says that
this is not a problem, and the director of the department who
was actually involved in selling hunting and fishing licenses in
Fairbanks and the rural communities, does not see this as a
problem. For all those reasons he cannot support Amendment 3,
he said.
2:00:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that the price of hunting
licenses increased to $94, and opined that when considering the
federal match, even one person fraudulently procuring a license
would cost the state $356 in revenue. He described that it is
an uncomfortable situation when a trooper has to ask someone
about their income, and by requiring verification alleviates
that discomfort in not asking that question at all. Currently,
he advised, military veterans must provide verification when
buying a discount license, albeit it for more than just one
year, but it is appropriate that other proof be provided for
non-veterans as well.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES maintained her objection.
2:01:17 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Kopp,
LeDoux, and Millett (alternate for Representative Reinbold)
voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 3. Representatives
Stutes (alternate for Representative Fansler) voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
2:02:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commended Alaska Wildlife Troopers, Major
Chastain, and the other staff that brought CSHB 129 forward
because moving a number of these offenses into the violation
section, not only deals with the court's resources in
prosecuting misdemeanors, but it also puts forward meaningful
dollar fines and reminders that the law must enforced and
respected. This legislation will streamline their operations,
save court resources, keep accountability at a higher level in
the law, and in the case of commercial fishing, it will allow
the fishermen to get right back to fishing, he advised.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he would like to associate
himself with Representative Kopp's comments.
2:03:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN reminded that the committee that many
portions in the legislation deal with violations or offenses
that do not involve any culpable mental state, whether it was an
accident or on purpose, it makes no difference in the law
because the person is still guilty of that offense. He offered
concern especially when dealing with fines of up to $10,000 for
those folks who are not intentionally doing wrong as maybe it is
their first visit to Alaska or their first-time hunting or
fishing. While he thinks the legislature wants to encourage
people to do right and that penalties are good, he pointed out
that there are so many different portions in this bill "where
there is no requirement for anyone, law enforcement, or
otherwise" to demonstrate that it was intentional.
2:05:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report CSHB 129(RES),
Version 30-GH1687, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 129(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee
2:05:28 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:05 p.m. to 2:10 p.m.
HB 315-CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL & CROP RECORDS
2:10:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 315, "An Act relating to the confidentiality of
certain records on animals and crops; and providing for an
effective date."
2:10:44 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), turned to the
PowerPoint presentation titled, "HB 315: Confidentiality of
Animal and Crop Records," slide 1, and advised that the Division
of Environmental Health worked with Governor Bill Walker's
office to introduce HB 315 because for at least the last 10-
years, the division has heard from the agricultural producers
that they would like the same level of protection provided to
other commercial industries. This protection would be by
keeping the animal importation and animal testing results
confidential. This legislation, she explained, would afford
those producers the same protection currently offered to
commercial fishermen, for example, the Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) has a similar statute. This bill amends AS 03.05 and
adds new sections authorizing the records held by Office of the
State Veterinarian (OSV) to be confidential, she reiterated.
This has been a coordinated effort with the Departments of
Environmental Conservation and Natural Resources, and she
advised that this presentation will reference the records
contained in the Division of Environmental Health, but this
would also give similar protection to the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), Division of Agriculture, who often holds crop
testing records.
2:12:54 PM
MS. CARPENTER turned to slide 3, titled "HB 315: Need Overview"
and explained that farmers requested this legislation because if
they work with her division on disease issues, that that
information may be subject to a public records release. The
division views this as an agricultural Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and would
provide those testing records and animal health records held in
the division as confidential. Therefore, this legislation would
be more protective of public health because it would allow
producers to engage with the division early on if there was a
disease outbreak or a morbidity event in which the division
could respond.
MS. CARPENTER then turned the presentation over to Dr. Bob
Gerlach, Alaska State Veterinarian regarding the role of his
office and the records the division is often responsible.
2:14:23 PM
DR. BOB GERLACH, State Veterinarian, Division of Environmental
Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), turned
to slide 4, titled "Office of the State Veterinarian" and
advised that his office is to responsible for the following:
prevention, control, and eradication of diseases in animals,
including livestock and pets; safeguard the health and food
production in the state; and prevent public health issues. Many
of these functions rely on his office to gather information
necessary to investigate an outbreak of a disease and know where
the risks are that are involved with the disease. This would
include: where animals are housed; animal movements; animal
imports; animal test records; and provide disease surveillance
records to show proof of concept, or proof of the state's
freedom from disease.
2:15:34 PM
DR. GERLACH turned to slide 5, titled "Program Functions and
Record Examples," and advised that the Office of the State
Veterinarian (OVR) maintains reportable disease records
containing reference data from slaughter plants, laboratories,
farms, and veterinarians. He explained that this slide depicts
some of its program functions, and basically these are different
functions available to collect the data it needs to understand
the risks involved with diseases in the state. Many functions
related to the animal input records that OSV has gathered data
from a health certificate, as well as input records from animals
coming into the state which provides animal inventories, disease
test records for these animals, origin, and destination of the
animals, he explained. Therefore, he offered, in the event or
an outbreak, the OSV could determine the location of that
outbreak and where those animals traveled to and from the state.
It also involves reporting of morbidity and mortality
investigations that the OSV may be involved in with other state
agencies. Many of these programs are certification programs
such as, the dairy program and the produce food safety program,
wherein if a producer wants to enter a market they must meet
federal requirements and provide his office with this
information and provide testing information to qualify and sell
their products. He explained that the Chronic Waste and Disease
Program or the National Poultry Improvement Plan provides
certification for these producers to show that the products they
are producing are free of disease, have a high standard of
quality, or validate the quality. For example, he offered,
Grade A milk to be sold within the state requires proof of
animal health and proof and verification of food safety being
produced.
2:17:55 PM
DR. GERLACH turned to slide 6, titled "Alaska Animal Imports:
OSV Records," and advised that the slide depicts some of the
import records OSV collects, and verification of the number of
imports associated with the number of animals coming into the
state. The slide illustrates the increase in the amount of
information gathered and records that OSV maintains as the
farmers and backyard operators begin to import animals or own
animals in the state. The Produce Food Safety Program was
recently created, due to an FDA requirement, wherein OSV
collects data and information on many agricultural farms that
requires the farmers to provide some personal data, business
data, and proprietary data. He noted that many other states are
gathering this same information and requiring that state to
address this issue and provide protections for personal,
proprietary, and business data to protect these individual farms
and businesses. Except, he said, also allowing release of that
data, when necessary, to follow-up on an investigation if there
is an outbreak, determine the source of the outbreak, and
perform the functions of which the OSV is required. For
example, he explained, provide animal health, ensure animal
health, protect public health, and make sure food safety is of
primary concern. In that regard, he advised, in the event of an
outbreak, "we do share that information" with the OSV's
collaborative partners to perform these investigations and
determine what could be done to mitigate this threat and correct
an outbreak.
2:19:48 PM
DR. GERLACH turned to slide 7, titled "Disease Outbreaks in
Alaska," and noted that the slide depicts an example of some of
the disease outbreaks that have occurred in Alaska, and offers
an appreciation for the number of diseases. He pointed out that
the slide shows some of the diseases that may solely affect
animals, and in those cases it works with the following:
veterinarians in the state; the Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) because the state does not want a domestic outbreak to
move into the wildlife; the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA); and if the situation involved public health
issues it would work with the Division of Public Health,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), as well as the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
[Slide 8 was described at timestamp 2:21:30.]
2:20:35 PM
DR. GERLACH turned to slide 9, titled "HB 315: Benefits," and
advised that the intent of this legislation is to protect
personal, proprietary, and business information, yet share that
data when necessary to protect animal health resources in the
state, public health, and food safety. He explained that it is
not that the OSV would collect it and not share it, because it
does share that data in a general format when there is an
outbreak to let veterinarians and farmers know there is an
issue, and that they should increase their biosecurity or their
preparedness in order to prevent the infection from entering
their farm or affecting their animals.
2:21:30 PM
MS. CARPENTER turned to slide 8, titled "HB 315: Sectional
Analysis," and advised that Section 1 amends AS 03.05 to make
certain animal and crop records, maintained by the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), exempt from the Alaska Public Records Act if
they contain personal, business, or proprietary information.
This legislation does allow the Office of the State Veterinarian
(OSV) to disclose that information if the department determines
there is a threat to the health or safety of an animal, crop, or
the public. Section 2 allows DEC and DNR to adopt regulations
to implement the Act, and at this time DEC does not foresee a
need to adopt regulations. Section 3 provides for an immediate
effective date, she said.
2:22:39 PM
MS. CARPENTER turned to slide 9, titled "HB 316: Benefits" and
added to Dr. Gerlach's testimony by noting that HB 315 has a
number of benefits specific to the agricultural industry growth.
It is the hope of OSV that by engaging with the OSV more often,
that there will be more routine surveillance testing of crops
and animals which would results in a higher quality product for
sale with increased production efficiency. There would also be
early identification and testing of sick or dead animals and in
the event of a disease outbreak, it would be contained, and the
OSV would keep that proprietary data confidential from potential
competitors.
2:23:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Dr. Gerlach's testimony that a
reason for the bill was to prevent public health hazards and not
end up with the public health hazard of a sick animal. In the
event the sickness is a public health hazard, she asked why the
testing is voluntary.
DR. GERLACH answered that some of the testing is voluntary and
other testing is required based on state and federal regulations
for access to markets in the sale and movement of animals.
2:24:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested an example of what disease tests
are voluntary and what tests are not voluntary.
DR. GERLACH responded that there is no required salmonella
testing in poultry, such as a backyard chicken house or a large-
scale producer selling eggs. Salmonella is a public health
disease that can cause illness in people and those people
performing voluntary testing use the results to show the quality
of their product and use that information as a sales marketing
tool, in comparison to other producers. Required disease
testing, for example, would be brucellosis testing for those
animals producing milk to be sold for consumption in the state,
the Grade A milk and cows must be tested. He offered that
brucellosis is very transmissible through animals and can make
them sick, but also can be transmitted to people and cause
severe illness, he explained.
2:25:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that brucellosis testing is
mandatory, and salmonella is voluntary, and asked whether
brucellosis is lethal and salmonella is not lethal.
DR. GERLACH explained that brucellosis was identified in the
early 1900s as a widespread disease within the animal industry
with current continuing pockets of brucellosis within the
wildlife in Alaska and the Greater Yellowstone area. Due to the
wide distribution of dairy products throughout that early time
period for brucellosis, and with the advent of pasteurization,
the testing is still required because it is a venereal disease
that can spread silently through a herd causing severe problems
and put the farmer at risk. Salmonella, he explained, can cause
severe illness but it is such a widespread disease that is
routinely found in the environment throughout the state. The
intention here is to try to decrease the risk for a transmission
of disease to people. In the event a person ate a raw egg,
their chance of ingesting salmonella could be upwards of about
10 percent of the commercial eggs having salmonella, he said,
and cooked eggs may be lower. He said that it is not based on
the OSV's determination but what federal or other laws have
already been required.
2:28:28 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether that was a long-hand way of saying
there was a risk benefit analysis, and based on that analysis,
"they are choosing" what is and is not mandatory.
DR. GERLACH answered in the affirmative.
2:28:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented the brucellosis risk benefit
analysis happened 100 years ago.
DR. GERLACH agreed, and he advised that if brucellosis disease
moves from state to state, there are strong regulations to
prevent that spread between any cattle or elk in the Greater
Yellowstone area, and the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana.
The implications of a disease spreading causes a great impact on
the general commercial industry, and in the event that disease
spread within the commercial industry within the United States,
that could impact global trade issues with respect to the
movement of animals and animal products out of the country, he
explained.
2:29:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that the testing is for the
industry and trade as opposed to public health.
DR. GERLACH answered that the testing performs both purposes, it
protects the industry and commerce on a local, state, and global
commercial level; as well as protects public health.
2:30:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that the Matanuska-Susitna Valley is
proud of its agriculture, particularly the "Alaska Grown"
program piece. He referred to the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee wherein Ms. Carpenter had mentioned partnering with
the Division of Agriculture to investigate abuses of the "Alaska
Grown" program, and he asked her to speak to that issue.
MS. CARPENTER advised that, under current state law, if DNR is
looking into an abuse of the "Alaska Grown" program, the OSV
could provide that information to DNR. Under this legislation,
the OSV would no longer be allowed to provide that information
to DNR unless there was a public health risk. Although, she
said, because the "Alaska Grown" program is voluntary, it would
be possible for DNR to require those animal importation records
as part of its verification process and remove DEC from the
middle of the process.
2:32:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered concern that when addressing
confidentiality, some of the information regarding which animals
are [imported into] Alaska will be harder to access for the
public. There may not be a robust and aggressive investigation
into the prosecution of abuses regarding the "Alaska Grown"
program, and he asked the last time someone was prosecuted for
abuse of this program.
MS. CARPENTER advised that the "Alaska Grown" program is under
DNR and she could not speak to that issue.
2:33:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked Dr. Gerach whether he was part of the
family from Glennallen.
DR. GERLACH advised that his family was originally from
Pennsylvania and not from Glennallen.
2:33:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that the gist of this bill is to try to
put farm and ranch producers on equal footing with seafood
producers and the manner in which information is handled. This
would be with regard to disease and the confidentiality of those
records, and when the department can make public those records,
and be treated in the same manner as the seafood industry, he
offered.
DR. GERLACH added that this would also provide protection of
personal and business data, not just from any proprietary
business data. He explained that for anyone running a business,
it would be protection of their business and marketing plan, it
is not solely related to food safety issues.
2:34:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered a scenario of one particular producer
having a diseased product and asked whether this bill would
allow the public identification of that producer or would this
prevent the identification of that one specific producer.
DR. GERLACH answered that the information would be released to
other collaborative partners in the event of a public health
threat, or in order to investigate, contain, and remove that
threat. Thereby, allowing the continuation of business
throughout the state so that other producers are not involved
and impacted by that disease outbreak or contamination, or a
public health threat associated with their products, he
explained.
2:36:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to slide 6, noting that the
state has imported more than 95,000 animals during this last
year and asked whether that is a trend he expects to continue.
DR. GERLACH answered that that trend is expected to continue
because there are a large number of small backyard operations
importing poultry for meat and egg productions and sales. He
also noted an increase in swine and cattle to meet the needs for
local market demand in restaurants and stores.
2:36:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that 401 horses were imported in
2017, and he asked Dr. Gerlach to speak to what is driving those
imports.
DR. GERLACH referred to the chart for 2016 and noted there was
not "too much of a variation," but there had been an increase in
pleasure horses and pack/work horses entering the state used for
guides and trail rides. The number of pleasure horses increased
drastically and the movement throughout the lower '48 has
increased much more than is being seen here, he advised.
2:37:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Dr. Gerlach to address the concern
that this confidentiality makes it harder for the public to know
whether an animal entered the state from Canada or was actually
Alaska grown. In the event the animal was not Alaska grown but
yet someone puts that label onto it, he asked how this bill is
serving, through confidentiality, to sweep that fact under the
rug.
MS. CARPENTER reiterated that the "Alaska Grown" program is held
under DNR and it is up to DNR to make sure the producers
qualifying for that program meet DNR's requirements. She
deferred to DNR to address the concerns from producers that
other producers may not meet those requirements.
2:39:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that it was clear the DEC could not
answer any questions about the "Alaska Grown" program.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there was a DNR person
online to address those issues.
CHAIR CLAMAN said the committee would move to public testimony
because someone online is from DNR.
2:40:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened the public hearing on HB 315.
2:41:04 PM
BRYCE WRIGLEY, Alaska Farm Bureau, advised that the Alaska Farm
Bureau is deeply committed to strengthening security in Alaska
by growing more of its own food. This, he commented, requires
commitment from farmers and statutes/regulations encouraging
local food production and processing. He pointed out that this
legislation is important because it will encourage farmers and
ranchers to communicate their concerns about their crops or
animals to the state agencies without fear that information will
become public. For example, he offered, a competitor could
leverage information about a neighbor's problem in order to
increase their own market share. Also, he offered, the
voluntary testing of animals or agricultural products allows for
early detection of a disease and allows treatment to be taken,
thereby, decreasing the potential for more serious outbreaks.
In spite of the benefits, he related that many farmers are
reluctant to subject their animals or products to this voluntary
testing because the results of those tests are not confidential.
He said that the Alaska Farm Bureau believes the state agencies
should function as a resource to help its members be successful,
and that cultivating that partnership is vital to developing a
strong local food system in Alaska. He then encouraged the
committee to pass this bill as it does no harm and it will build
trust between the state's food producers and the government. In
working together, they can transform the state's food (indisc.).
2:42:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 315.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Mr. Keys, Division of Agriculture, that a
member has questions regarding the "Alaska Grown" program, how
it intersects with HB 315, and the position of the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) on this legislation.
2:43:35 PM
ARTHUR KEYES, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), related that it is important the
farmers' trust the government when they have a problem.
Certainly, Dr. Gerlach was professionally speaking on the
livestock side of things, and on the plant side, he advised that
the Division of Agriculture provides testing for the farmers as
needed. As Mr. Wrigley had advised, he stated that it is
important the farmers trust that when they go to DNR with a
problem, that DNR is able to help them address their problem
without fear a neighbor may be able to use the legal Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) process to use that information against
the farmer on the marketing side of things. He expressed that
the importance of trust could not be understated, including the
importance of the relationship between DNR and its farmers.
2:44:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the last time someone had been
prosecuted for an abuse of the "Alaska Grown" program.
MR. KEYES answered that he could not say there had been a
prosecution, but there was a 2016 lawsuit wherein the State of
Alaska sued the Mat-Su Chapter of the Alaska Farm Bureau over
the use of the logo.
2:45:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the fact that cattle or a
horse had been imported from out-of-state is proprietary
information or should that information be available to the
public.
MR. KEYES opined, after listening to Dr. Gerlach's testimony
today, that an animal being imported into the State of Alaska
would not be protected information, and the proprietary business
information attached to that would be confidential.
2:46:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether "becoming confidential"
would make it more difficult for the public to determine whether
an animal had been Alaska grown.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out to Representative Eastman that Mr.
Keyes' answer was that the information that the animal
originated in Canada was not confidential.
MR. KEYES answered that Chair Claman was correct.
CHAIR CLAMAN verified that the confidential information has to
do more with disease issues, such as brucellosis and salmonella,
but in terms of the fact where the animal originated (audio
difficulties).
2:46:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether this bill would make that
type of information more difficult for the public to obtain or
would it stay the same as it is currently.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked which information Representative Eastman was
referencing.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered, specifically regarding the
origin of an animal.
MR. KEYES responded that finding out the number of animals that
came in from Canada is fine, but the information of the origin
of his neighbor animals is proprietary information because that
is not in the public's interest, he opined.
2:47:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that the effect of this bill
would be to include that information with other proprietary
information.
MR. KEYES said he was not sure he understood the question. He
opined that wherever the farmer gets the cattle he puts on his
farm, it is not the neighbor's business where that cattle
originated.
CHAIR CLAMAN related that he was confused because he had asked
Mr. Keyes whether obtaining a permit to import an animal from
Canada was public information and if so, how can it be private
that the animal in his backyard is from Canada.
MR. KEYES deferred to Dr. Gerlach because he is the better
person to answer this specific livestock question. He opined
that there is information on the import tags where the animal
originated and the farm. As Mr. Wrigley had noted, it would be
detrimental to a business to have it out there for public
consumption. Although, he said, that does not mean a person
cannot know an animal came from Canada, but there is information
that should be protected.
2:49:31 PM
DR. GERLACH explained that every animal coming into the state is
required to have an ear tag listing the source of origin for
that animal. In the event they are specifically arriving from
Canada, they must have a Canadian specific ear tag, as well as a
tattoo or a brand. Those animals are identified from their
source, which is extremely important to trace if there is a
disease outbreak or an issue with the health and safety of that
product, he explained.
2:50:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he understands it is important
for the department to have that information but offered concern
that the public may not readily have that information. He asked
whether the tag is required to stay with the animal for the life
of the animal or only when they come into the state.
DR. GERLACH advised that the tag, through federal requirements,
is forbidden to be taken out of that animal until it is
slaughtered or processed for food.
2:50:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Dr. Gerlach whether this
legislation will make the information regarding the animal's
origin more difficult to obtain, or not have any effect.
DR. GERLACH answered that if the question is whether this animal
is Alaska grown, that would be directed toward the Division of
Agriculture to evaluate the circumstances, where that animal was
raised, and how long it was raised in Alaska, to determine
whether it met that label requirement. With respect to the
number of animals coming into Alaska, OSV publishes a yearly
chart to let people know how many animals have been imported
into the state, which is part of annual information OSV
distributes to veterinarians, farmers, and the Alaska Farm
Bureau.
2:51:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN re-asked his question in a different
manner, as a member of the public, will this bill make it more
difficult from him to determine whether a particular animal was
imported.
DR. GERLACH advised that if Representative Eastman was asking
him whether he could tell advise if Chair Claman's cattle were
Canadian cattle, he would say, "I will not tell you that because
that's proprietary business where he has his cattle." In the
event Representative Claman is marketing the cattle and selling
them to Representative Eastman through the "Alaskan Grown"
program, then Representative Eastman would go through the
Division of Agriculture to determine whether those cattle met
the requirements of the "Alaskan Grown" program.
2:52:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she was thoroughly confused, and
surmised that the public can find out, due to this permit,
tattoo, or whatever, what animals have arrived from Canada. In
the event her neighbor imported an animal from Canada, it is
public information as to "where that animal is, correct?"
DR. GERLACH said that that information can be obtained, but
through this regulation and proprietary information, how
Representative Claman is building his cattle herd to enter
different markets is his business plan, and it is protected as
proprietary information, personal information.
2:53:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that under this bill, the public
will not be able to know where these cattle originated, it will
only be allowed to know that 100 head of cattle came into Alaska
from Canada. She further surmised that, in whose backyard those
cattle have landed, the public will be not allowed to know.
DR. GERLACH answered that Representative LeDoux was correct
because these cattle came in through Canada and met all of the
USDA health requirements to come into the country and have met
all of the Alaska requirements that they are healthy and free
from infectious/contagious disease.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that if a person was worried about where
their neighbor's cattle originated, they could walk to the fence
and wave the cow over and read its tag.
2:55:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether any member has a potential amendment
for HB 315.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he does have an amendment
because the witnesses have not been able to answer the state of
the enforcement of the "Alaska Grown" program, and this
legislation will limit the ability of public to oversee and
identify what is "Alaska Grown." He related that it puts all
of the onerous on the department "to do so," and he has heard
concerns that the department is not aggressively pursuing those
investigations even when credible information was offered. He
said he would like to receive information from the department as
to the last time it prosecuted someone for that type of abuse,
and how robust is its investigation process.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Jennifer Currie, Department of Law (DOL)
whether there are any provisions in the criminal code or other
code that would allow for criminal prosecution related to misuse
of the "Alaska Grown" program.
2:57:18 PM
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Environmental Section, Department of Law (DOL), advised that she
is unaware of any criminal provisions that would go to
prosecution for improper use of the "Alaska Grown" program.
2:57:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN (audio difficulties) asked whether there has been
any practice in the Department of Law (DOL) to bring civil
actions relating to misuse of the "Alaska Grown" program.
MS. CURRIE replied that, unfortunately, she represents the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and it does not
have that program, and she was unaware whether there had been
prosecutions.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented, or at least civil cases if not criminal
prosecutions. In order to get Representative Eastman's
questions answered they would need a different section in the
DOL.
2:58:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether any of the cannabis
operations adopted the "Alaska Grown" program for their
operations.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP advised that "we don't have the testing
down" even for the facilities the state does have to teach
[laughter through comment - indisc.] much less "Alaska Grown."
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that as a legal matter, it must be grown
in Alaska because it is illegal to cross state lines.
2:59:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that marijuana producers can use
the label "Alaska Grown."
MR. KEYES responded that currently, no marijuana producers are
allowed to use the "Alaska Grown" logo with their crop because
that program is run through the Division of Agriculture and it
is not accepting marijuana producers' applications. The primary
reason being that it uses a lot of federal dollars for that
program and it is still an illegal crop on the federal level,
which would jeopardize the division's funding for that program.
Also, he said, to Representative Eastman's question, if the
division saw or heard of a violator possibly using "Alaska
Grown" improperly, it would contact that person and potentially
remove them from the "Alaska Grown" program.
3:01:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Keyes, as Director of the Division of
Agriculture, whether he was familiar with any civil lawsuits
filed against anyone in connection with the misuse of the
"Alaska Grown" program.
MR. KEYES reiterated that in 2016, a civil lawsuit was filed,
and pointed out that during the two years of his tenure as
director, the division has contacted various retail outlets when
the "Alaska Grown" program was used in a questionable manner.
He related that on every occasion that the division contacted
the vendor, the problem was rectified with minimal issues.
3:02:20 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB129 ver D 1.29.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB129 Updated Fiscal Note DOA-SSOA 2.9.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB129 Amendments #1-3 2.9.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB129 Amendments #1-3 HJUD Final Votes 2.9.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB315 ver A 2.9.18.PDF |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 Transmittal Letter 2.9.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 Supporting Document-Public Comment.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 PowerPoint Presentation 2.9.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB315 Fiscal Note DEC-EHL 2.9.18.PDF |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |