Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124

03/29/2017 01:00 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 2. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:08:52 PM Start
01:09:30 PM Confirmation Hearing(s):
02:06:34 PM HB155
05:11:44 PM HB129
05:44:59 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Recessed to 5:00 pm --
Confirmation Hearing: AK Board of Fisheries
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 155 AK MENTAL HEALTH TRUST LAND EXCHANGE TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 155(RES) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
*+ HB 129 FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
**Streamed live on AKL.tv**
        HB 129-FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
5:11:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON announced  that  the last  order of  business                                                               
would be HOUSE  BILL NO. 129, "An Act relating  to sport fishing,                                                               
hunting,  or trapping  licenses,  tags, or  permits; relating  to                                                               
penalties  for  certain  sport  fishing,  hunting,  and  trapping                                                               
license violations;  relating to restrictions on  the issuance of                                                               
sport   fishing,  hunting,   and   trapping  licenses;   creating                                                               
violations and  amending fines and  restitution for  certain fish                                                               
and  game  offenses;  creating   an  exemption  from  payment  of                                                               
restitution  for certain  unlawful takings  of big  game animals;                                                               
relating to commercial fishing  violations; allowing lost federal                                                               
matching  funds   from  the  Pittman   -  Robertson,   Dingell  -                                                               
Johnson/Wallop -  Breaux programs to  be included in an  order of                                                               
restitution;  adding  a  definition  of  'electronic  form';  and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
5:12:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR  BERNARD  CHASTAIN,  deputy director,  Division  of  Alaska                                                               
Wildlife Troopers (AWT), Department  of Public Safety, introduced                                                               
HB 129  [on behalf of Governor  Walker].  Major Chastain  said HB
129 accomplishes  four primary goals.   First, he  explained, the                                                               
bill would allow  for issuing a correctable citation  to a person                                                               
who  does not  have the  appropriate sport  fishing, hunting,  or                                                               
trapping  license in  his  or  her actual  possession.   This  is                                                               
similar  to  [citations  issued for]  correctable  headlights  or                                                               
correctable vehicle insurance.   Second, he said,  the bill would                                                               
make  it  unlawful  for  a  person to  obtain  a  sport  fishing,                                                               
hunting, or  trapping license if that  person has had his  or her                                                               
rights to engage in those  activities revoked or suspended in any                                                               
other  state, and  including Alaska.   Third,  he continued,  the                                                               
bill  would increase  restitution amounts  for unlawfully  taking                                                               
big game  animals and would increase  strict liability commercial                                                               
fishing fines for first, second,  and third offenses.  Fourth, he                                                               
stated,  the majority  of the  bill  would standardize  penalties                                                               
within Title  16 and  would create  an option  for charging  as a                                                               
class A misdemeanor,  which most are already but  this would also                                                               
give troopers an option for charging as a violation offense.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
5:14:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained that section 1  of HB 129 would amend AS                                                               
16.05.330(a)  to  include  the   word  "permit"  in  addition  to                                                               
"license" and "tag"  for purposes of clarifying  the proper types                                                               
of  documentation  a  person  must  have in  his  or  her  actual                                                               
possession.    Thus,  a  person  would have  to  have  a  permit,                                                               
license, and tag in his  or her actual possession.  Additionally,                                                               
section 1 would renumber [the  activities listed in] 1 through 5.                                                               
They are renumbered, he said, because  1 and 2 are sport offenses                                                               
and 3, 4, and 5 are considered commercial activities.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN stated that section  2 would amend AS 16.05.330(d)                                                               
to make  it unlawful for  a person  to purchase a  sport fishing,                                                               
hunting, or  trapping license if his  or her rights to  engage in                                                               
those  activities have  been revoked  or suspended  in "this  or"                                                               
another  state.    Current  statute directs  that  a  person  who                                                               
applies  for a  sport fishing,  hunting, or  trapping license  or                                                               
other  permit or  tag issued  under  this section,  shall sign  a                                                               
statement  that  his  or  her  right  to  obtain  or  exercise  a                                                               
privilege  is   not  revoked  or  suspended   in  another  state.                                                               
Surprisingly,  he  pointed out,  this  statute  does not  include                                                               
Alaska;  adding the  words "this  or" makes  the statute  include                                                               
Alaska.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
5:15:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE  directed attention  to the bill  on page                                                               
2, line 7 which read:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     (5)  control of nuisance wild birds and nuisance wild                                                                      
     small mammals for compensation.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WESTLAKE  said  in  villages,  and  sometimes  in                                                               
Kotzebue,  there  are  bird  strikes with  planes  and  he  asked                                                               
whether  this provision  would make  it illegal  for a  person to                                                               
scare off  nuisance birds when  someone else buys the  shells for                                                               
this purpose, but does not  compensate the person for scaring off                                                               
the birds.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN replied  the requirement states that  a license or                                                               
permit is required in order to  do that activity.  While troopers                                                               
do not  encounter this very  often, there  are folks who  do that                                                               
around the state for compensation.   There are businesses that do                                                               
this,  he continued,  and they  must  have that  permit from  the                                                               
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG).                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN resumed  his sectional analysis.   He said section                                                               
3  would amend  AS 16.05.330  by adding  three subsections.   The                                                               
first  proposed  new  subsection  would  make  it  a  correctable                                                               
offense by providing  that a person charged with  failing to have                                                               
the appropriate  sport fishing, hunting,  or trapping  license in                                                               
his or  her actual possession  may not  be convicted if  no later                                                               
than  30 days  after  the  issuance of  the  citation the  person                                                               
produces a license previously issued  to that individual that was                                                               
valid  at the  time of  the  offense.   The official  correctable                                                               
citation would  be brought in  to any  office of the  Division of                                                               
Alaska State  Troopers, Department  of Public Safety,  within the                                                               
state, it  would be signed off  within 30 days, and  it would not                                                               
go on the record.  It  would basically be considered a warning to                                                               
the person  for not having  a license [in actual  possession], he                                                               
said.  Licenses  are sometimes forgotten at home or  in a vehicle                                                               
and currently if an individual does  not have a license on his or                                                               
her person troopers must decide  whether the person actually does                                                               
have  a license  since people  don't always  tell the  truth.   A                                                               
correctable citation  would make  it much  easier for  the person                                                               
who  does have  a license  and this  person doesn't  have to  pay                                                               
anything.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
5:18:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained that the  second proposed new subsection                                                               
in  section  3  would  allow for  actual  possession  to  include                                                               
electronic form.   At some point in the future,  he related, ADFG                                                               
desires  to  have  a  system of  electronic  licensing  and  this                                                               
provision  would allow  a hunter,  fisher, or  trapper to  decide                                                               
whether to carry his or  her license electronically instead of in                                                               
paper format.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN stated  that the third proposed  new subsection in                                                               
section 3 would  hold the peace officer  inspecting an electronic                                                               
license in  the field immune  from liability if damage  occurs to                                                               
the device in  the process of inspection.   Hunting, fishing, and                                                               
trapping  licenses  are  often inspected  in  adverse  conditions                                                               
aboard  boats in  violent seas  or while  hands are  contaminated                                                               
with  fish or  game  parts  in remote  locations.   If  something                                                               
happens to  the device in the  short time that the  peace officer                                                               
is inspecting the license, this  subsection would hold the agency                                                               
immune, he continued.   If this subsection  is implemented, these                                                               
resource users will  have the ability to carry  their licenses in                                                               
either paper or electronic format.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR  CHASTAIN related  that  section 4  would  remove under  AS                                                               
16.05.430, fish and  game penalties, the specific  fine of $1,000                                                               
and penalties  associated with  an unclassified  misdemeanor, and                                                               
would replace it with a class A misdemeanor.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN  noted that onward from  section 4 he is  going to                                                               
lump together  a number of  sections because they all  follow the                                                               
same pattern.   Over the years  within Title 16, he  explained, a                                                               
series of penalties  have been added by  the legislature somewhat                                                               
piecemeal.   Some  of those  penalties are  less than  a class  A                                                               
misdemeanor,  and  some are  more.    The  bill would  align  the                                                               
penalties to  class A misdemeanors  and point to Title  12, which                                                               
defines a  misdemeanor.  For  lesser offenses, he said,  the bill                                                               
would allow  troopers to charge  a violation offense, which  is a                                                               
maximum [fine]  of $500.  In  all the regulations created  by the                                                               
Board of Game and the Board  of Fisheries that govern hunting and                                                               
fishing, he continued,  troopers are allowed to  reduce crimes to                                                               
a violation  offense.  Troopers  can decide through  the district                                                               
attorney's office  whether the violation  is not as serious  as a                                                               
misdemeanor, and instead charge it  as a violation offense, which                                                               
is a reduced  offense.  In fact, a violation  is not considered a                                                               
criminal offense and  does not go on a  person's criminal record,                                                               
he  explained.   It is  basically a  ticket that  is paid  like a                                                               
traffic ticket.  Thus, the bill  would align penalties as class A                                                               
misdemeanors, and create sections for violations to be charged.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
5:21:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN  noted section 5  relates to  section 4.   He said                                                               
section 5  would [amend AS  16.05.430 by adding  two subsections]                                                               
and would  create the ability to  charge some of the  offenses as                                                               
violations, as well as misdemeanors.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN  said section  6 [would  amend AS  16.05.722(a) in                                                               
relation  to  fines  for]  strict  liability  commercial  fishing                                                               
violations.   Strict liability, he  explained, means a  person is                                                               
strictly  liable  for  his  or  her  offense  regardless  of  the                                                               
culpable  mental state.   He  posed an  example involving  a road                                                               
traffic situation:  If  a person is going 75 miles  per hour in a                                                               
55 mile per  hour zone, the police officer does  not have to show                                                               
that the  driver knew the speed  limit was 55, and  does not have                                                               
to show  the driver  knew his or  her speed was  75.   The police                                                               
officer only  needs to  show the  driver was  doing 75  miles per                                                               
hour.   The driver  is strictly  liable for  that offense  and no                                                               
culpable mental state  is required to prove that.   The two types                                                               
of  violations  in  commercial fishing,  he  stated,  are  strict                                                               
liability commercial  fishing violations, which are  not criminal                                                               
offenses, and class A misdemeanors.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR  CHASTAIN said  the [increased]  fine  amounts proposed  in                                                               
section 6  for first-, second-,  and third-time  strict liability                                                               
commercial  fishing  offenses within  a  10-year  period are  the                                                               
maximum amounts the  court could impose if  the commercial fisher                                                               
is found  guilty.  The  current fine amounts were  established in                                                               
1988 when the  Alaska State Legislature enacted  this section, he                                                               
pointed  out.   While the  proposed amounts  look like  the fines                                                               
have gone up, it is actually  an adjustment for inflation to 2016                                                               
dollars.  The fines for  first- and second-time offenses would go                                                               
up by  50 percent and  the third-time offense, which  was enacted                                                               
after 1988, would go up [less than 50 percent].                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained section 7  would amend [AS 16.05.722] by                                                               
adding a new subsection that  would require the court to transmit                                                               
notice  of  all convictions  under  this  section to  the  Alaska                                                               
Commercial  Fisheries  Entry  Commission  (CFEC),  which  is  the                                                               
keeper  of  commercial fishing  points.    Like with  a  driver's                                                               
license, he continued, a commercial  fisher can get points on his                                                               
or her commercial licenses and if  a certain amount of points are                                                               
accumulated on  the license  over a 10-year  period of  time, the                                                               
CFEC  can  revoke or  suspend  that  person's commercial  fishing                                                               
license.   The points  would be  transferred with  the conviction                                                               
and CFEC would then apply those points.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN  stated that sections  8, 9,  10, 11, 12,  13, 14,                                                               
15,  and 16  are  all  adjustments to  class  A misdemeanors  and                                                               
violations;  penalties within  each  section are  adjusted and  a                                                               
[subsection] for  violations to be  charged is created  with each                                                               
section.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
5:24:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON related  that for a couple years  he did Title                                                               
16 and  Title 5 under [Alaska]  Administrative Code prosecutions.                                                               
He said  it seemed  like there was  frequently an  opportunity to                                                               
charge something  as a Title  5 violation  instead of a  Title 16                                                               
misdemeanor.   He asked what the  change is for offenses  such as                                                               
failure to salvage and wanton waste.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR  CHASTAIN requested  confirmation  that the  aforementioned                                                               
question is  about when [a  trooper] decides that a  violation is                                                               
appropriate or that a misdemeanor is appropriate.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  replied yes,  and further asked  whether that                                                               
discretion hasn't  already been  available where a  trooper could                                                               
either charge as a criminal offense or as an infraction.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR  CHASTAIN  responded  that  currently  within  the  [Alaska                                                               
Administrative Code  (AAC)], within the regulations  the Board of                                                               
Fisheries and  the Board of  Game create, [troopers] do  have the                                                               
ability  to  reduce  to  a violation.    However,  he  explained,                                                               
[troopers] do  not currently have  that ability in Title  16 and,                                                               
if  passed, HB  129 would  provide  that ability  and would  give                                                               
[troopers] two different charging options in Title 16.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR  CHASTAIN returned  to  his sectional  analysis.   He  said                                                               
section  17  proposes  to  amend   [AS  16.05.925],  penalty  for                                                               
violations, to  provide consistency in the  penalties as provided                                                               
under AS 12.55.  Drawing attention  to the dollar figures for big                                                               
game  animals included  within this  section, he  noted that  the                                                               
court  could  impose these  restitution  values  when someone  is                                                               
convicted  and the  case warrants  applying  restitution.   These                                                               
animals belong to the state's  citizens collectively, he said, so                                                               
when a big game animal is  unlawfully taken it defrauds the state                                                               
and its  citizens of the  value of the  animal.  The  values vary                                                               
greatly, he  continued, depending on  the species of  the animal,                                                               
the location  of the take,  the social  value of the  animal, the                                                               
economic value  of the animal, and  the food source value  to the                                                               
people of the  state.  In most  cases it does not  make the state                                                               
whole for  the loss of the  animal, he noted, but  it helps repay                                                               
the state for the illegal take.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN  pointed out that the  current restitution amounts                                                               
were enacted by  the legislature in 1984 and  have gone untouched                                                               
since  then.   He explained  that a  previous version  of HB  129                                                               
submitted  to  the  legislature  in  2016  would  have  increased                                                               
restitution  amounts  by 50  percent  from  the base  amounts  in                                                               
statute.  In  that version, some of the  restitution amounts were                                                               
changed in House and Senate  committees and HB 129 reflects those                                                               
changes.   Because the  previous version died  in the  House last                                                               
year, the bill is being resubmitted  this year [as HB 129].  Some                                                               
of the amounts  have gone up more than 50  percent, he continued,                                                               
and represent the  equivalent to 2016 dollars.   [The restitution                                                               
amount for] moose, for instance,  has gone from $1,000 to $2,500.                                                               
These are maximum  amounts imposed at the discretion  of a judge,                                                               
and in addition to any fines or penalties.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
5:27:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WESTLAKE  asked  how the  restitution  valuations                                                               
were derived.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN answered that the  original determination was just                                                               
for  inflation, which  is about  50  percent more  than the  1984                                                               
numbers,  and  those  were   the  numbers  originally  submitted.                                                               
However,  he continued,  during  the committee  process in  2016,                                                               
amendments  [were  adopted]  that  changed those  numbers  to  be                                                               
higher than what was originally submitted.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WESTLAKE  observed  that  the  bison  restitution                                                               
figure in section 17 was inflated more than any of the others.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
5:28:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN resumed  his sectional analysis.   He said section                                                               
18 would add  a new subsection [to AS 16.05.925]  that relates to                                                               
[AS  16.05.925(b)].   The  new  subsection,  he explained,  would                                                               
establish that a defendant may  not be ordered to pay restitution                                                               
if  the defendant  takes an  animal, realizes  the animal  is not                                                               
legal, and then voluntarily and  immediately reports the unlawful                                                               
take of  the animal to  a state  law enforcement officer  or ADFG                                                               
and  surrenders all  salvaged portions  of the  animal, including                                                               
its horns, antlers,  hide, and skull, as applicable.   The person                                                               
would be  charged with a  violation of  fact, would get  a ticket                                                               
[costing]  a couple  hundred dollars,  and would  not be  charged                                                               
with a misdemeanor, would not lose  his or her hunting rifle, and                                                               
would not lose  his or her hunting license or  the equipment that                                                               
was used.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE  observed that the  bill on page  5, line                                                               
28, uses  the word "may"  rather than  "will".  He  asked whether                                                               
this wording is used because it will  be up to the purview of the                                                               
judge.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN said the word "may"  is directive to the court, so                                                               
the court  may not  [order a defendant  to pay  restitution under                                                               
(b) of this section].                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
5:30:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  posed a scenario in  which an out-of-state                                                               
hunter unlawfully kills  a bear without having bothered  to get a                                                               
permit.  He questioned whether  this hunter could only be charged                                                               
with violations if he or  she surrenders the salvaged portions of                                                               
the bear.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that that  is not entirely true; this is                                                               
only  in   the  situation  where  the   hunter  has  "immediately                                                               
notified" and doesn't have to  do with permitting or licensing or                                                               
any of the rest of that.  It  is basically that if a person takes                                                               
a  game  animal  that  is  not legal  for  that  scenario.    [In                                                               
Representative  Parish's  scenario]  there  would  be  additional                                                               
violations,  such  as  no  locking tag,  no  permit,  no  hunting                                                               
license, and  none of the  other things that are  associated with                                                               
what  the  hunter must  have.    Plus, to  take  a  brown bear  a                                                               
nonresident hunter  must also have  a guide or be  accompanied by                                                               
someone with a second degree of kindred [to the hunter].                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
5:31:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  offered his understanding that  this proposed                                                               
provision is just a way to mitigate the restitution portion.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN  answered correct  and noted that  Senator Coghill                                                               
added this  provision last year.   [The Alaska  Wildlife Troopers                                                               
(AWT)]  fully  supports this  provision,  he  said, and  operates                                                               
under it to  begin with.  However, there  is inconsistency within                                                               
the  court  system,  he  explained.   [AWT]  seeks  to  create  a                                                               
situation where  people turn themselves  in and AWT  doesn't want                                                               
to punish people  for calling when they've made a  mistake.  This                                                               
section  would allow  AWT to  deal with  the situation  of people                                                               
turning themselves  in and  then not having  to worry  about what                                                               
other  penalties may  come  down  the road  from  the court  with                                                               
restitution.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
5:32:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  asked whether calculations have  been done                                                               
to determine the amount of restitution  it would take to make the                                                               
state whole for the big game animals [listed in section 17].                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN replied that each  big game animal means something                                                               
different to different people.   For example, there is a dramatic                                                               
difference between what a moose  means to someone relying on that                                                               
animal  for  subsistence,  compared  to what  a  moose  means  to                                                               
someone paying to come to Alaska  to take the animal.  Therefore,                                                               
he said, he does not have an answer.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
5:33:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN  returned to his sectional  analysis and addressed                                                               
section  19,  which  would  [amend  AS  16.05.940]  by  adding  a                                                               
definition of  "electronic form" as  it pertains to section  3 of                                                               
the  bill.   Electronic form  would mean  the display  of license                                                               
images  on  an electronic  device  such  as a  mobile  telephone,                                                               
tablet, or computer that will  satisfy the display of fishing and                                                               
hunting licenses.  He reiterated  that ADFG is working toward the                                                               
idea of  being able to display  things on a telephone  or tablet.                                                               
However, he  noted, there are  still going  to be times  when the                                                               
actual  paper  form will  still  be  necessary; for  example,  to                                                               
validate an actual tag, to record a  king salmon on the back of a                                                               
license, and a number of other things that must be recorded.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN  stated that sections 20-27  would align penalties                                                               
for a class  A misdemeanor and would provide that  AST be able to                                                               
charge for violations for these types of offenses.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN said section 28  would amend the uncodified law of                                                               
Alaska  to  make  it  clear  that the  Act  applies  to  offenses                                                               
committed on or after the effective date of the Act.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR  CHASTAIN  concluded  by relating  that  section  29  would                                                               
provide for an effective date of July 1, 2017.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
5:34:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR TARR, regarding the penalties provided in [sections 20-                                                                
27],  asked why  the language  is  more specific  in making  them                                                               
class A misdemeanors.   She further asked whether  the removal of                                                               
language related to imprisonment  is because class A misdemeanors                                                               
cannot have jailtime associated with them.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN  recalled Senate  Bill 91  [passed in  the Twenty-                                                               
Ninth  Alaska  State  Legislature]  and the  alignment  of  those                                                               
penalties.    Continuing,  he  explained that  Title  12  is  the                                                               
definition of  a misdemeanor, and  therefore the language  in the                                                               
aforementioned  sections points  everything  to Title  12 as  the                                                               
definition of  a misdemeanor.  Under  Senate Bill 91, he  said, a                                                               
class  A  misdemeanor   went  up  to  $25,000   and  jailtime  is                                                               
associated  with it  possibly.   A  whole bunch  of things  could                                                               
happen as  a misdemeanor,  but because  these were  separated out                                                               
and piecemealed,  this language  points it to  Title 12  and says                                                               
this is  what a misdemeanor  is.  As well,  it allows for  AST to                                                               
charge for violations.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON   asked  whether  the   previously  mentioned                                                               
restitution issue that  failed in the legislature  was House Bill                                                               
137.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
UNKNOWN SPEAKER replied no.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
5:36:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  TARR, in  regard to  the proposed  restitution amounts,                                                               
inquired  as to  how frequently  these types  of infractions  are                                                               
occurring.  She further inquired  whether there are other actions                                                               
that  committee members  should consider  as  a means  to try  to                                                               
limit how frequently these types of infractions occur.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN  replied that strict liability  commercial fishing                                                               
violations  are  "the bread  and  butter  for commercial  fishing                                                               
violations around  the state."   The majority of these  happen in                                                               
Bristol Bay, but they do happen all  over the state.  This is the                                                               
easiest  way  for  the  state  to  deal  with  a  somewhat  minor                                                               
infraction  that happens  in commercial  fishing; but,  if it  is                                                               
thought to  be a  more serious  offense, AWT  has the  ability to                                                               
charge a  class A misdemeanor.   Regarding  how often, he  said a                                                               
couple hundred  per year occur in  Bristol Bay and his  guess for                                                               
statewide  is around  500 commercial  fishing violations  a year.                                                               
About 150-200  self-reported violations  are turned in  each year                                                               
to AWT.   A  variety of  other things are  also enforced  by AWT.                                                               
So, AWT does deal with this fairly frequently.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR TARR,  in regard to self-reporting  of violations, asked                                                               
whether it is usually a  mistaken estimation of the animal's size                                                               
that is realized after the animal has been shot.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN confirmed the aforementioned  is exactly right for                                                               
the majority  of these violations.   For example,  the regulation                                                               
is 50 inches  for moose antlers, but upon shooting  the animal it                                                               
is found to be  45 inches, or the hunter may  think the moose has                                                               
a certain number  of brow tines or that it  is a full-curl sheep,                                                               
but it  is not.   Also, he continued, AWT  gets a fair  number of                                                               
reports from hunters who thought it  was a bull moose, but it was                                                               
actually a  cow.   [AWT] tries to  handle these  consistently, he                                                               
explained  further, and  offers appreciation  to the  hunters who                                                               
self-report because  it takes  a lot  of intestinal  fortitude to                                                               
call the  troopers and say they  made a mistake.   [AWT] wants to                                                               
make  sure  these people  are  treated  appropriately instead  of                                                               
letting the meat go to waste in the field.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  TARR inquired  whether  the fines  associated with  the                                                               
aforementioned  are  high  enough  to  discourage  that  kind  of                                                               
behavior.   She surmised  that having to  turn over  the salvaged                                                               
meat  would be  somewhat of  a deterrent.   She  further inquired                                                               
whether any issues are seen in the guided-hunting community.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR  CHASTAIN  responded  that  taking   apart  a  moose  is  a                                                               
substantial  process and  he thinks  that the  penalty is  pretty                                                               
good  of having  to take  the moose  apart to  salvage the  meat,                                                               
taking the meat out of the  field, keeping it clean, and bringing                                                               
it  in to  turn yourself  in.   The fines  through the  court are                                                               
typically around $300 for this  offense, he said, which he thinks                                                               
is appropriate for this type of  offense.  Over the years AWT has                                                               
refined this  process and people  know they will get  a citation,                                                               
they cannot  keep the meat,  the meat will  go to a  charity, and                                                               
that they cannot shoot another moose in the same year.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
5:41:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH directed  attention to the bill  on page 6,                                                               
lines 1-2, which read:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
        (2)  surrendered to the department all salvaged                                                                         
     portions of the animal, including its horns, antlers,                                                                      
     hide, and skull, as applicable.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  asked whether this language  suggests that                                                               
failing  to  surrender  portions  of the  animal  that  were  not                                                               
salvaged is not a disqualifying characteristic.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR  CHASTAIN understood  Representative  Parish  to be  asking                                                               
whether  failure  to  bring  out  all  those  items  would  be  a                                                               
disqualifier.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  surmised that  under  a  very strict  and                                                               
narrow  reading  of  the aforementioned  language,  if  a  person                                                               
failed to salvage the meat they wouldn't be in trouble.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  stated that  this may  need an  amendment and                                                               
will be looked at in further detail.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
5:43:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TALERICO offered  his understanding  that when  a                                                               
person makes  a big mistake  under section 18, that  person could                                                               
still be charged  with a violation, and will have  to pay a small                                                               
penalty; it is  just the restitution that the  person wouldn't be                                                               
charged with.   He opined  there should be  no free pass  when an                                                               
animal is  taken.   Representative Talerico stated  that he  is a                                                               
hunter and  "when you make  that mistake you  have to pay  for it                                                               
because that  will make you  more careful  the next time  you put                                                               
your finger on the trigger."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAJOR CHASTAIN confirmed the violation  would remain in place and                                                               
that  it  is  the  restitution  from  the  court  that  would  be                                                               
prohibited.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
[HB 129 was held over.]                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 129 02.14.17 Transmittal Letter.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 129
HB 129 Sectional.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 129
HB0129 Fiscal Note DFG 2.15.17.PDF HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 129
HB0129A.PDF HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 129
Frederick (Fritz) Johnson_Redacted.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Fish
John Jensen 2016_Redacted.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Fish
Reed Morisky 2016_Redacted.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Fish
ASA Support - Jensen Morisky Johnson.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Fish
Bristol Bay Borough Support - Johnson.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Fish
CDFU Support - Jensen.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Fish
Icicle Support - Jensen Johnson.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Fish
KRSA Support - Jensen Morisky Johnson.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Fish
ATA Support - Jensen.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Fish
KPFA Support - Jensen Morisky Johnson.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Fish
Unalaska Mayor Support - Jensen Morisky Johnson.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Fish
USAG Support - Jensen.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Fish
HB0129 Fiscal Note DPS-AWT 3.29.17.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB155 Supporting Document-AFA Response to SEACC.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 155
HB155 Supporting Document - SWood 3.29.17.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 155
HB155 Supporting Document-AFA Response to SEACC 3.29.17.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 155
HB155 Opposing Document Testimony -- Larry Edwards for 29 March hearing on HB155 3.29.17.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 155
HB155 Supporting Document - Comment - CWood 3.29.17.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 155
HB155 Opposition Document - Letter of Comment-SEACC 3.29.17.pdf HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 155