Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/09/2018 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB129 | |
| HB315 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 315 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
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
| 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 |