Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
02/21/2024 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB190 | |
| SB168 | |
| SB199 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 168-COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFULLY SEIZED GAME
3:35:21 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
168 "An Act relating to wrongfully seized game."
3:36:11 PM
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, District D, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SB 168, said hunters painstakingly
plan hunting opportunities to fill their freezers each Fall. He
stated that they physically train to prepare for the rigors of
the hunt and practice marksmanship with their weapons to ensure
a quick, clean harvest. Hunters also work diligently to learn to
identify what makes the species of the animals they hunt legal.
Learning to identify legal tines on a moose, the overall spread
of a moose rack, or what makes a sheep horn full curl can be
difficult. However, young hunters can learn how to identify
animals that are legal for harvest according to state
regulations. He mentioned he taught dozens of middle school
students in outdoor education on the process each year. Alaska's
selective harvest regulations based on antler configuration or
horn growth allow for increased hunting opportunity for all
Alaskans. However, there are sometimes disagreements between
hunters and law enforcement about whether a harvested animal is
indeed legal. When an animal is suspected of being illegally
harvested, it is seized and given to others, so it does not go
to waste while waiting for the courts to decide the case. If the
court finds that the hunter was in the right and the deceased
animal was indeed legal, the unlawfully taken meat is gone and
cannot be returned.
3:38:01 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN stated that according to many hunters who have
experienced this situation, the state places their name on the
list to receive roadkill as compensation for their loss. Trading
roadkill animals for a legally cared for animal is not just
compensation for the state's error in enforcing the law. This
bill seeks to provide hunters with monetary compensation for an
unlawfully taken animal so the hunter can purchase meat of their
own choosing. The game animals included under SB 168 are
typically those most eaten. However, he is open to including
bears. The goal of SB 168 is to ensure hunters have just
compensation when animals are wrongfully taken. He expressed
appreciation for past incidences when law enforcement recognized
the error and returned or replaced the animal. However, often
hunters must wait for long periods of time to receive an animal
and sometimes it is an unsuitable alternative.
3:39:41 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked why bears were excluded from the list.
3:39:52 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN said there is not a selective harvest
requirement for bears, so it was excluded from SB 168. However,
there are instances where law enforcement has seized bear meat
and returned it to the hunter, so he agreed it would be logical
to include bears.
3:40:19 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI recounted a conversation with someone last
year who experienced wrongful confiscation of their moose, took
the case to the Supreme Court, and won. One year later, the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) claimed it no longer
possessed the meat, amounting to a loss of 600-800 lbs. of food
for someone reliant on subsistence living. He asked Senator
Bjorkman if he considered including seals, ducks, or fish.
3:41:08 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN replied that fish are fairly easy to replace,
marine mammals are regulated by the federal government, and he
did not consider including small game. He stated that his focus
remains primarily on cases involving the wrongful confiscation
of big game, which he hears about more frequently.
3:41:39 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN referred to SB 186, line 11, and asked why "and"
preceded musk ox rather than include it in the sequence.
3:42:04 PM
RAYMIE MATIASHOWSKI, Staff, Senator Jesse Bjorkman, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said he would consult with Legal
Services and follow up with a response.
3:42:14 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked him to speak to the fiscal note from ADFG
and stated his belief that it raises questions.
3:42:55 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR also sought additional fiscal details.
3:43:15 PM
MS. MATIASHOWSKI presented the sectional analysis for SB 168:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 168 Version A
Sectional Analysis
"Compensation for Wrongfully Seized Game"
Section 1: Amends AS 16.05 by adding a new section, AS
16.05.197, which compensates hunters who have had a
hoofed animal wrongfully seized by the state. This
monetary compensation will take the weight in pounds
of the wrongfully seized game meat multiplied by the
current per-pound price of beef sold in the area the
game was taken in.
3:44:00 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked how a wrongfully taken animal is determined
and wondered which cut of meat is used. He relayed that ADFG
suggested there are ambiguities under SB 168.
3:44:18 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN said when drafting SB 168, the intent was to
base the value on the price of beef per pound. However,
expecting beef to be sold in a rationalized price per region is
unrealistic. There are other alternative methods the committee
could consider, such as utilizing the existing statutory value
of the animal for determining a restitution price.
3:45:26 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked if the restitution table is specific to the
region the meat was harvested and noted differences based on
location.
3:45:59 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN replied that restitution is specific to the
community where the animal was harvested. However, compensation
is statewide and not specific to any particular region.
3:46:27 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR commented that animals harvested in rural areas
may be worth far more.
3:46:50 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN agreed and stated the intent of SB 168 is to
allow ADFG to replace an animal with an alternative that is
agreeable to the hunter. He opined that most hunters would
prefer a suitable replacement over a small monetary compensation
listed on the restitution schedule.
3:48:12 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR inquired about the number of animals seized per
year.
3:48:34 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP invited Colonel Chastain, Alaska Wildlife
Troopers, to respond.
3:48:58 PM
COLONEL BERNARD CHASTAIN, Alaska Wildlife Troopers, Department
of Public Safety (DPS), Juneau, Alaska, replied that DPS
researched cases of wrongfully seized game over the previous
five years. He stated that the department returned on average 1-
2 animals per year. This includes all seized animals, including
moose, sheep, caribou, and other animals across the state,
although some years may see a higher count. This includes cases
where the court found the defendant not guilty and returned the
animal. It also includes cases when technical issues occurred
due to an error made by the court or law enforcement, and
sometimes by the Department of Law (DOL), leading to case
dismissals and the return of the animal to the defendant.
3:50:27 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked if the Senate Finance Standing Committee
would hear SB because of the indeterminant fiscal note.
3:50:36 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP replied he is uncertain given pending amendments
to the bill.
3:50:42 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR opined that it would be relatively easy to
determine the fiscal impact considering only 1-2 moose per year
are seized.
3:51:04 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked on average how many big game animals
are seized annually.
3:51:17 PM
COLONEL CHASTAIN estimated that over one hundred big game
animals are seized per year. He stated that the majority of
seized animals are moose and average over one hundred per year.
Annually, about 20-25 sheep, along with some Caribou, deer, and
other animals are seized annually. The total average is about
150 or more.
3:51:55 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI inquired about the process after animals
are seized and asked how many of those animals are returned to
the hunter.
3:52:10 PM
COLONEL CHASTAIN replied that once an animal is seized, it is
documented and goes to a charity organization unless the case is
contentious. He said many cases result from hunters who
voluntarily admit their mistake while some cases involve hunters
coordinating with ADFG to arrange an animal field check. ADFG
then assists DPS in determining the legality of taking the
animal. In instances where a court mandates the return of an
animal, the next available animal akin to the original is
offered to the defendant. The department works with defendants
to determine a resolution when offers are declined. In most
situations, the next available animal in good condition that is
akin to the original game is provided to the defendant. The
department makes a statewide effort to preserve processed
illegally taken game for restitution purposes.
3:54:24 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN stated that in the second paragraph of the
indeterminant fiscal note, it discusses how to determine if game
was wrongfully seized. He requested clarification on the process
by which a criminal case concludes with a defendant being found
not guilty, yet the game seized during the case is not
considered wrongfully taken.
3:54:56 PM
COLONEL CHAISTAIN replied that according to AS 16.05.190, DPS is
authorized to seize an animal and cite the hunter when there is
probable cause to believe it was wrongfully taken. The court is
then required to forfeit the animal. The term "wrongfully
seized" is not legally defined. Occasionally, the court
determines the animal was legal and it is returned to the
hunter.
3:56:00 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked for confirmation of his understanding that
if the criminal court finds the defendant not guilty and orders
the return of the game, the state is not held responsible for
wrongfully obtaining the seized animal.
3:56:20 PM
COLONEL CHAISTAIN replied that is correct and reiterated that he
is unaware of a legal definition of "wrongfully seized" or a
finding that would come from the court.
3:56:30 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether anyone had ever filed a civil case
for the return of game meat that was seized by the state.
3:57:06 PM
CHERYL BROOKING, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Department
of Law (DOL), Anchorage, Alaska, replied she has been on the job
for ten years and never witnessed a civil claim related to
wrongfully seized game.
3:57:26 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many animals are seized and
returned before a court action.
3:57:52 PM
COLONEL CHAISTAIN replied it is rare for that situation to
occur, but it is possible.
3:58:10 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL suggested defining the term "wrongfully
seized."
3:58:47 PM
MS. BROOKING recommended that it would be helpful to either
define "wrongfully seized" or reference the existing definition
of "probable cause" if it is determined that an animal was
seized without probable cause.
3:59:20 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked about the legal implication of moving to
define "wrongfully seized" as opposed to "probable cause." He
asked if there are any other sections in statute that use the
term "wrongfully seized."
4:00:03 PM
MS. BROOKING replied she is unaware of any location in statute
where the term is used.
4:00:18 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how the Department of Law (DOL) makes
a hunter whole in cases where troopers raid someone's house and
game evidence is spoiled.
4:00:44 PM
MS. BROOKING deferred to Colonel Chaistain to respond.
4:01:16 PM
COLONEL CHAISTAIN asked for clarification to ensure he
understood the question correctly.
4:01:34 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI provided an example of spoiled evidence and
asked if compensation is provided.
4:01:52 PM
COLONEL CHAISTAIN replied that Alaska State Troopers may enter a
person's home and cause damage, but officers do their best to
repair and replace everything that was destroyed.
4:02:49 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if the state reimburses the value of the
property that is no longer viable when it is seized by state
troopers.
4:03:27 PM
COLONEL CHAISTAIN replied that he is aware of a situation where
the court found that a person was not guilty or liable. He said
in these situations, DPS tries to make the person whole by
replacing any damaged items and the defendant is given the
option to receive the next available roadkill animal or a
similar animal. Sometimes, a person may wait several months
before an animal of similar quality is obtained for the
replacement. However, the animal is delivered in most situations
when the court finds the defendant not guilty.
4:04:41 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced invited testimony and invited Ted
Spraker, former Chair of Alaska Board of Game, to speak to SB
168.
4:05:08 PM
TED SPRAKER, representing self, Soldotna, Alaska, said he is a
strong supporter of SB 168 and appreciates how it ensures
fairness for the public. He provided a hypothetical scenario and
drew a parallel with liability in compensating for truck damage
in an auto accident to highlight the importance of rectifying
wrongful citations for illegal moose meat confiscation. While
antlers may be returned if a citation is later found to be
legal, the meat is often unrecoverable. He stressed that ADFG
and state troopers have difficult jobs, but acknowledged that
mistakes may occur and they should be held accountable. He said
he has been called in several times as an expert witness for
hunters since he played a lead role in the implementation of
selective harvest in 1997. A few years ago, a woman killed a
moose and the animal was brought to ADFG thereafter. The
department determined that the animal was illegal, so the
antlers and meat were stored in Alaska State Troopers' freezer.
The case went on for several months and the judge eventually
ruled in her favor. However, when she obtained the meat, it was
inedible and could not be used to feed her family. He said this
type of scenario does not happen often, but it is devastating
when it does occur. He opined that SB 168 is a good bill that
would fairly compensate hunters who wrongfully lose their game.
4:09:37 PM
REBECCA SCHWANKE, representing self, Glenallen, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 168. She explained her background as
a former Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) employee and
current roles as a big game guide, hunter, wildlife biologist,
consultant, and expert witness on Dall sheep legality. She said
she spent 12 years working alongside ADGF and big game hunters
on numerous research management projects. One project included
establishing Dall sheep full curl-horn regulations in 2004. She
stated she also worked closely with other state biologists and
state troopers, including Colonel Chaistain, to develop the
sealing process. Her role included training staff to ensure
consistency in the Dall sheep legality determination and sealing
procedures with fairness and consistency. She recounted the
opportunity to testify in court on behalf of state prosecutors
and recently on behalf of hunters who had their Dall sheep horns
wrongfully seized. She said hunters hope ADFG and the Alaska
State Troopers are consistently working to ensure they employ
the highest quality training for their staff and ensure a full
and fair evaluation of legality when a harvested animal is
presented. Acknowledging that the state generally gets it right
in legality determinations, she noted the difficulty and loss
experienced by both parties in cases of confiscation. If a
hunter opts to contest the confiscation and comes out of court
without a guilty verdict, it is up to the state to return the
evidence to the hunter. She highlighted the significant amount
of time, energy, and resources expended by hunters who contest
confiscations and are found not guilty. There is currently a
lack of standardized requirements or a process to compensate
hunters for the loss of valuable game meat. In some situations,
hunters do not receive any meat or compensation. When a big game
animal is wrongfully seized, the value of the animal may be
worth more in certain regions. She stated she trusts that the
committee and bill sponsor can work together to find a
consistent, easier to apply, fair evaluation process for
wrongfully taken big game.
4:13:16 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP concluded invited testimony and held SB 168 in
committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 168 ADFG Fiscal Note 02.10.24.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 168 |
| SB 168 Sponsor Statement Ver. A. 02.21.24.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 168 |
| SB 168 Sectional Analysis Ver A. 02.21.24.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 168 |
| SB 190 Public Testimony as of 02.21.24.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| SB 199 Ver. S.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |
| SB 199 Explanation of Changes v. A to S.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM STRA 2/20/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |
| SB 199 Presentation DNR SRES Ver. S.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |
| HB 282, SB 199 State Land_Disposal_Sale_ Briefing Paper 02.13.2024.pdf |
HTRA 2/13/2024 1:30:00 PM SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 282 SB 199 |
| SB 199 Transmittal Letter 01.22.2024.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |
| SB 199 Fiscal Note DNR 02.12.2024.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM STRA 2/13/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |
| SB 199 Fiscal Note DEED 01.24.2024.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM STRA 2/13/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |
| SB 190 Amendment 1.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| SB 199 Sectional Analysis Ver. S. 02.21.24.pdf |
SRES 2/21/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 199 |