04/16/2024 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE

SENATE BILL NO. 168                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act relating to wrongfully seized game."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
9:04:07 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  JESSE  BJORKMAN,  SPONSOR, explained  that  SB  168                                                                    
dealt  with instances  in which  game had  wrongfully seized                                                                    
from hunters by  the Department of Public  Safety (DPS), and                                                                    
then  found   to  be   legal.  He   hoped  there   would  be                                                                    
compensation in  the form  of comparable  game meat,  but if                                                                    
not  possible the  goal  of  the bill  was  to provide  cash                                                                    
compensation.  He  discussed  the training  and  preparation                                                                    
necessary  for a  hunt. He  discussed animal  identification                                                                    
for the purposes of legal harvest.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Bjorkman   mentioned  Alaskas    selective  harvest                                                                    
regulations   based  on   horn  composition   and  mentioned                                                                    
disagreements  between  hunters   and  law  enforcement.  He                                                                    
described  a scenario  in which  game was  seized while  the                                                                    
court addressed the  matter, during which time  the meat was                                                                    
given to another  person. Even if a hunter was  in the right                                                                    
and  the seized  animal was  legal,  the meat  could not  be                                                                    
returned. He  relayed that hunters  had described  being put                                                                    
on the  roadkill  list  as compensation for  seized game. He                                                                    
asserted that  trading a  roadkill animal  for a  well cared                                                                    
for  hunted  animal  was not  just  compensation.  The  bill                                                                    
sought  to  provide  monetary compensation  for  the  seized                                                                    
animal,  so  a  hunter  could purchase  meat  of  their  own                                                                    
choosing.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:07:12 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RAYMOND MATIASHOWSKI,  STAFF TO SENATOR BJORKMAN,  read from                                                                    
a Sectional Analysis (copy on file):                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Section 1: Amends AS 16.05  by adding a new section, AS                                                                    
     16.05.197,  which  compensates  hunters  who  have  had                                                                    
     certain  edible animals  seized  by the  state and  are                                                                    
     later  found not  guilty of  violating the  statute the                                                                    
     animal   was   seized   under.  The   value   of   this                                                                    
     compensation comes from  the restitution schedule found                                                                    
     in AS 16.05.925(b).                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section 2:  Amends AS  16.05.925(b), by  increasing the                                                                    
     penalty imposed  on hunters who unlawfully  take any of                                                                    
     the animals listed in the subsection.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:08:06 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Kiehl observed  that the  restitution schedule  was                                                                    
increased for  animals that  were eaten  as well  as animals                                                                    
that were  not eaten.  He noticed that  in the  section, all                                                                    
bears  were included.  He noted  that  not all  bears had  a                                                                    
requirement to salvage edible meat.  He asked if the sponsor                                                                    
had looked at differentiating getting  paid only if the hide                                                                    
and skull and claws were confiscated.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Bjorkman  relayed  that   he  had  considered  many                                                                    
circumstances when  deciding whether or not  to include bear                                                                    
in  the  legislation. After  discussion  it  was decided  to                                                                    
include bear.  He discussed eating  bear. He thought  it was                                                                    
difficult for hides to be cared  for properly if not under a                                                                    
hunters   watchful care  and supervision.  He  thought if  a                                                                    
hunters  animal  could not  be satisfactorily  restored, the                                                                    
hunter deserved  compensation if  the animal  was wrongfully                                                                    
seized.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman asked  for the sponsor to  help clarify the                                                                    
difference between  edible black  bears and brown  bears. He                                                                    
was not  aware of  anyone that ate  brown bears,  wolves, or                                                                    
wolverines. He asked the sponsor for more detail.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Bjorkman  did not  know  anyone  that ate  wolf  or                                                                    
wolverine,  but knew  that many  people ate  brown bear.  He                                                                    
noted that  all bears should  be cooked well. He  noted that                                                                    
as he  updated the  restitution schedule to  accommodate for                                                                    
inflation, the  amounts for the entire  restitution schedule                                                                    
were adjusted.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stedman  asked if  there  was  testimony from  the                                                                    
department to  indicate the  frequency of  wrongfully seized                                                                    
game and the geographic spread.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Senator   Bjorkman   thought   there  had   been   differing                                                                    
recollections.  He  thought  there  had  been  instances  of                                                                    
animal  seizure  in  the  Fall   of  2021  that  were  legal                                                                    
according to  many in the  hunting community.  The situation                                                                    
had caused the Board of Game  to take action to change moose                                                                    
harvest  regulations  on  the Kenai  Peninsula.  He  thought                                                                    
invited testifiers  could provide  perspective on  the issue                                                                    
and the reasoning for the boards action.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
9:12:53 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TED SPRAKER,  FORMER CHAIR, ALASKA  BOARD OF  GAME, SOLDOTNA                                                                    
(via  teleconference),  spoke  in  favor  of  the  bill.  He                                                                    
supported  the   bill  primarily  because  of   fairness  to                                                                    
hunters.  He  relayed  that  he had  worked  as  a  wildlife                                                                    
biologist for  the Department  of Fish  and Game  (ADFG) for                                                                    
over 28  years and had  served on the  Board of Game  for 18                                                                    
years. He thought the bill  addressed an important issue. He                                                                    
mentioned   previous  testimony   that  iterated   that  the                                                                    
occurrence of  improper game seizure  happened only  once or                                                                    
twice per  year. He  was puzzled  and thought  the instances                                                                    
happened more frequently.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Spraker continued  that  if a  hunter  took an  illegal                                                                    
moose,  the  hunter  was  fined  and  could  be  subject  to                                                                    
equipment seizure  and payment  of restitution.  He pondered                                                                    
the improper seizure of game  and thought restitution should                                                                    
be paid  to the  hunter. He  thought compensation  of $1,800                                                                    
was  not  sufficient.  He  knew  that  the  Alaska  Wildlife                                                                    
Troopers  did their  best to  compensate  hunters that  were                                                                    
subject to  wrongful game  seizure by  moving the  hunter up                                                                    
the  roadkill list.  He  mentioned that  in  his many  years                                                                    
working for the department, he  had dealt with many roadkill                                                                    
issues  and  had found  that  the  majority of  the  animals                                                                    
suffered  significant damage.  He discussed  the process  of                                                                    
caring  for game  and described  the difficulty  of applying                                                                    
proper  field dressing  techniques to  a roadkill  moose. He                                                                    
considered  that roadkill  was not  a substitute  for hunted                                                                    
game.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
9:16:46 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REBECCA  SCHWANKE,  SELF, GLENNALLEN  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
testified  in  support  of  the bill.  She  was  a  lifelong                                                                    
Alaskan, avid  hunter, and had  taught hunter  education for                                                                    
20 years. She  was a wildlife biologist that  had worked for                                                                    
ADFG and as a consultant.  She described that she had worked                                                                    
as an expert witness for  Dall sheep cases. She acknowledged                                                                    
the work  of Alaska State  Troopers. She discussed  cases of                                                                    
wrongfully  seized  game,  and   the  need  for  appropriate                                                                    
compensation. She  discussed the  prospect of  losing hunted                                                                    
meat through the improper seizure.  She thought the troopers                                                                    
needed to make more of an  effort to properly keep and store                                                                    
seized game.  She did not  think roadkill was  an acceptable                                                                    
alternative  for compensation.  She thought  the bill  was a                                                                    
remedy.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stedman asked  how many  times  that the  proposed                                                                    
bill would have been implemented over the previous decade.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:21:11 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RYAN  SCOTT, DIRECTOR,  DIVISION  OF WILDLIFE  CONSERVATION,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT  OF FISH  AND  GAME  (via teleconference),  noted                                                                    
that  the   instance  of  mistaken  game   seizure  happened                                                                    
predominantly with  sheep and  moose. He  noted that  he had                                                                    
been a  biologist for  many years and  had been  involved in                                                                    
some  related  cases. He  thought  the  situations had  been                                                                    
limited  and estimated  that  there were  two  to three  per                                                                    
year.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stedman   asked  how  people  in   Southeast  were                                                                    
compensated for wrongfully confiscated moose.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Scott answered  that if there was a  court proceeding in                                                                    
the near term, another seized moose would be given.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman asked for more  data. He was unaware of any                                                                    
moose  being run  over by  a car  or boat  in Southeast.  He                                                                    
thought more definitive answers  were needed and thought the                                                                    
species and location could be identified.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Scott identified  that road  kills  of moose  primarily                                                                    
occurred in Haines and Yakutat.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Senator Kiehl  asked if the  department was in  the position                                                                    
to  seize game  meat, or  if the  task was  taken on  by law                                                                    
enforcement.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Scott relayed that typically  ADFG was the first contact                                                                    
with  hunters, and  if there  was a  question, the  troopers                                                                    
would be contacted for guidance.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
9:25:52 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOE  FELKL,  LEGISLATIVE  LIAISON, DEPARTMENT  OF  FISH  AND                                                                    
GAME,  noted that  DPS  also  had its  own  fiscal note.  He                                                                    
addressed a new  fiscal note from DFG,  OMB Component Number                                                                    
473.  He  noted  that  if  a  person  was  found  guilty  of                                                                    
illegally taking  game, the court may  impose restitution to                                                                    
the  state  in  the   amounts  under  AS  16.05.925(b).  The                                                                    
restitution  payments were  transferred  into  the Fish  and                                                                    
Game Fund in  accordance with statue. The  deposits were the                                                                    
focus  of  the fiscal  note.  The  department anticipated  a                                                                    
positive revenue impact  as a result of  the legislation. If                                                                    
enacted, the bill  would increase the amount  of revenue per                                                                    
restitution payment  for the species  listed by  55 percent.                                                                    
The   amount   received   by  the   Division   of   Wildlife                                                                    
Conservation would also increase by 55 percent.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Felkl noted  that the  Analysis section  of the  fiscal                                                                    
note  included restitution  amounts identified  in different                                                                    
years, with  a low of $30,000  and a high of  over $100,000.                                                                    
The  increase could  range from  approximately $20,000  to a                                                                    
high  of approximately  $60,000. Based  on the  uncertainty,                                                                    
the  department  submitted  an  indeterminate  fiscal  note,                                                                    
however it  estimated a  net positive  due to  the increased                                                                    
restitution amounts.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
9:28:40 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator   Wilson  asked   how  an   individual  would   seek                                                                    
restitution under the  bill, or if a lawsuit  would be filed                                                                    
for restitution.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Felkl  noted that  the  Committee  Substitute from  the                                                                    
Senate Resources Committee (SRES)  clarified the matter, and                                                                    
the  restitution  would  be upon  the  court  overturning  a                                                                    
guilty conviction or  having a finding a  person not guilty.                                                                    
The  departments  position  was  that  restitution would  be                                                                    
automatic.  He thought  the Court  system could  address the                                                                    
question.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Senator Wilson  mentioned the  expense of  a sheep  hunt and                                                                    
pondered restitution of only $2000  as proposed in the bill,                                                                    
which might not cover the airfare  for a hunt. He asked if a                                                                    
person could engage in a  civil suit against the department,                                                                    
and how often such a thing occurred.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Felkl deferred the question to another agency.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
9:30:40 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LISA  PURINTON, LEGISLATIVE  LIAISON,  DEPARTMENT OF  PUBLIC                                                                    
SAFETY, addressed a new fiscal  note from DPS, OMB Component                                                                    
2746. She identified that the  department had a small fiscal                                                                    
note  for  $10,800.  The  cost  was  derived  from  research                                                                    
compiled by Alaska Wildlife Troopers, from taking a five-                                                                       
year average  of cases  in which  an individual  with seized                                                                    
game was  found not  guilty. The results  showed one  to two                                                                    
cases   per  year.   The  bill   would   require  that   the                                                                    
compensation would  be required to  pay for the  seized game                                                                    
and using  adjusted restitution rates for  two muskoxen. She                                                                    
noted  that  there had  been  no  data  on cases  that  were                                                                    
appealed or  set aside.  She believed  that there  was staff                                                                    
from the Alaska Wildlife Troopers available for questions.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman  asked if Ms. Purinton  had indicated there                                                                    
had been one case per year.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Purinton  relayed that there  had been one to  two cases                                                                    
per year based on the five-year average.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stedman   asked  about  the  frequency   that  the                                                                    
compensation  would be  implemented  and  asked for  history                                                                    
about the data gathering for the five-year average.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
9:33:12 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COLONEL   BERNARD   CHASTAIN,  DIRECTOR,   ALASKA   WILDLIFE                                                                    
TROOPERS   DIVISION,  DEPARTMENT   OF  PUBLIC   SAFETY  (via                                                                    
teleconference),   indicated  that   when  considering   the                                                                    
impacts of  the bill,  the department  had done  a five-year                                                                    
lookback to  cases that were  found not guilty in  court. He                                                                    
continued  that Alaska  Wildlife Troopers  were required  by                                                                    
law to  seize animals that  were determined to be  not legal                                                                    
in the  field. Animals  were seized  before a  legal process                                                                    
was underway. Once  through the court process,  a case could                                                                    
be dismissed. Within the five-year  lookback, there had been                                                                    
one  to  two cases  per  year  found not  guilty,  including                                                                    
seizures of moose, sheep, caribou,  and other animals across                                                                    
the state. He thought it  was important to note that statute                                                                    
required  law  enforcement  to  seize  an  animal  that  was                                                                    
thought to be illegally taken.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stedman thought  the  reasons  for animal  seizure                                                                    
were  clear. He  asked  if Mr.  Chastain  could provide  the                                                                    
committee  with  the  data   from  the  five-year  lookback,                                                                    
including species and location.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Col. Chastain agreed to provide the information.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Senator   Kiehl  asked   about  types   of  violations   and                                                                    
associated   trooper  policy   that  would   include  animal                                                                    
seizure.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Col. Chastain  relayed that there were  different categories                                                                    
of  violations  and  crimes  within  statute.  Some  of  the                                                                    
violations  were  listed  on the  bail  schedule,  which  he                                                                    
likened to  a traffic  ticket. He  mentioned a  citation for                                                                    
failure to  include evidence of  animal sex, after  which an                                                                    
animal would  not be  seized. He noted  that typically  if a                                                                    
violation was  not on the  bail schedule, the  default crime                                                                    
was a misdemeanor, and the  troopers would determine whether                                                                    
the animal would be seized.  He mentioned examples of a sub-                                                                    
legal  moose,  or a  cow  moose  taken  out of  season,  and                                                                    
described scenarios in which an animal would be seized.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
9:38:25 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Bjorkman appreciated  the  clarification from  Col.                                                                    
Chastain  regarding the  one to  two instances  per year  of                                                                    
cases going to  court and not including cases  that had been                                                                    
dismissed. He noted  that it was his intention  for the bill                                                                    
to  include  language  for  cases  that  were  dismissed  or                                                                    
dropped. He  contended that a  hunter should not have  to go                                                                    
all  the  way  through  a  court  process  to  get  property                                                                    
returned in order to receive just compensation.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Bjorkman explained  that  the reason  the bill  was                                                                    
coming forward  was to ensure that  hunters were compensated                                                                    
appropriately,  and  for  hunters to  be  presumed  innocent                                                                    
until  proven guilty.  He mentioned  instances on  the Kenai                                                                    
Peninsula in the fall of 2021  in which a hunters  moose was                                                                    
seized and  later charges  were dropped,  or the  animal was                                                                    
determined to be  legal. He emphasized that it  was just for                                                                    
the  hunter to  receive compensation,  and many  hunters had                                                                    
not. He discussed actions by ADGF  in which a panel of three                                                                    
biologists determined  whether a moose was  legal. The Board                                                                    
of Game  had changed  ceiling requirements to  eliminate the                                                                    
problem  and   minimize  the  number  of   moose  that  were                                                                    
wrongfully taken.  He wanted hunters to  be duly compensated                                                                    
when animals were taken that should not have been.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman  thought the bill  mentioned a  court order                                                                    
to  pay  restitution.  He asked  if  the  sponsor  suggested                                                                    
reverting  to an  earlier version  of the  bill, whether  he                                                                    
supported  amending the  bill, or  whether he  supported the                                                                    
SRES version of the bill.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Senator Bjorkman  recounted that  there had  been discussion                                                                    
in the SRES  Committee that indicated a desire  for a change                                                                    
to be made in order for  hunters to be compensated when they                                                                    
were not found guilty.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the bill language.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Senator  Bjorkman relayed  that the  bill did  not currently                                                                    
have  the language,  but he  would support  an amendment  to                                                                    
ensure  that hunters  were compensated  fairly if  they were                                                                    
not found guilty.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SB  168  was  heard  and   HELD  in  Committee  for  further                                                                    
consideration.