Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/16/2024 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
SB168 | |
SB215 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | SB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | SB 215 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 168 "An Act relating to wrongfully seized game." 9:04:07 AM SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, SPONSOR, explained that SB 168 dealt with instances in which game had wrongfully seized from hunters by the Department of Public Safety (DPS), and then found to be legal. He hoped there would be compensation in the form of comparable game meat, but if not possible the goal of the bill was to provide cash compensation. He discussed the training and preparation necessary for a hunt. He discussed animal identification for the purposes of legal harvest. Senator Bjorkman mentioned Alaskas selective harvest regulations based on horn composition and mentioned disagreements between hunters and law enforcement. He described a scenario in which game was seized while the court addressed the matter, during which time the meat was given to another person. Even if a hunter was in the right and the seized animal was legal, the meat could not be returned. He relayed that hunters had described being put on the roadkill list as compensation for seized game. He asserted that trading a roadkill animal for a well cared for hunted animal was not just compensation. The bill sought to provide monetary compensation for the seized animal, so a hunter could purchase meat of their own choosing. 9:07:12 AM RAYMOND MATIASHOWSKI, STAFF TO SENATOR BJORKMAN, read from a Sectional Analysis (copy on file): Section 1: Amends AS 16.05 by adding a new section, AS 16.05.197, which compensates hunters who have had certain edible animals seized by the state and are later found not guilty of violating the statute the animal was seized under. The value of this compensation comes from the restitution schedule found in AS 16.05.925(b). Section 2: Amends AS 16.05.925(b), by increasing the penalty imposed on hunters who unlawfully take any of the animals listed in the subsection. 9:08:06 AM Senator Kiehl observed that the restitution schedule was increased for animals that were eaten as well as animals that were not eaten. He noticed that in the section, all bears were included. He noted that not all bears had a requirement to salvage edible meat. He asked if the sponsor had looked at differentiating getting paid only if the hide and skull and claws were confiscated. Senator Bjorkman relayed that he had considered many circumstances when deciding whether or not to include bear in the legislation. After discussion it was decided to include bear. He discussed eating bear. He thought it was difficult for hides to be cared for properly if not under a hunters watchful care and supervision. He thought if a hunters animal could not be satisfactorily restored, the hunter deserved compensation if the animal was wrongfully seized. Co-Chair Stedman asked for the sponsor to help clarify the difference between edible black bears and brown bears. He was not aware of anyone that ate brown bears, wolves, or wolverines. He asked the sponsor for more detail. Senator Bjorkman did not know anyone that ate wolf or wolverine, but knew that many people ate brown bear. He noted that all bears should be cooked well. He noted that as he updated the restitution schedule to accommodate for inflation, the amounts for the entire restitution schedule were adjusted. Co-Chair Stedman asked if there was testimony from the department to indicate the frequency of wrongfully seized game and the geographic spread. Senator Bjorkman thought there had been differing recollections. He thought there had been instances of animal seizure in the Fall of 2021 that were legal according to many in the hunting community. The situation had caused the Board of Game to take action to change moose harvest regulations on the Kenai Peninsula. He thought invited testifiers could provide perspective on the issue and the reasoning for the boards action. 9:12:53 AM TED SPRAKER, FORMER CHAIR, ALASKA BOARD OF GAME, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), spoke in favor of the bill. He supported the bill primarily because of fairness to hunters. He relayed that he had worked as a wildlife biologist for the Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) for over 28 years and had served on the Board of Game for 18 years. He thought the bill addressed an important issue. He mentioned previous testimony that iterated that the occurrence of improper game seizure happened only once or twice per year. He was puzzled and thought the instances happened more frequently. Mr. Spraker continued that if a hunter took an illegal moose, the hunter was fined and could be subject to equipment seizure and payment of restitution. He pondered the improper seizure of game and thought restitution should be paid to the hunter. He thought compensation of $1,800 was not sufficient. He knew that the Alaska Wildlife Troopers did their best to compensate hunters that were subject to wrongful game seizure by moving the hunter up the roadkill list. He mentioned that in his many years working for the department, he had dealt with many roadkill issues and had found that the majority of the animals suffered significant damage. He discussed the process of caring for game and described the difficulty of applying proper field dressing techniques to a roadkill moose. He considered that roadkill was not a substitute for hunted game. 9:16:46 AM REBECCA SCHWANKE, SELF, GLENNALLEN (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She was a lifelong Alaskan, avid hunter, and had taught hunter education for 20 years. She was a wildlife biologist that had worked for ADFG and as a consultant. She described that she had worked as an expert witness for Dall sheep cases. She acknowledged the work of Alaska State Troopers. She discussed cases of wrongfully seized game, and the need for appropriate compensation. She discussed the prospect of losing hunted meat through the improper seizure. She thought the troopers needed to make more of an effort to properly keep and store seized game. She did not think roadkill was an acceptable alternative for compensation. She thought the bill was a remedy. Co-Chair Stedman asked how many times that the proposed bill would have been implemented over the previous decade. 9:21:11 AM RYAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), noted that the instance of mistaken game seizure happened predominantly with sheep and moose. He noted that he had been a biologist for many years and had been involved in some related cases. He thought the situations had been limited and estimated that there were two to three per year. Co-Chair Stedman asked how people in Southeast were compensated for wrongfully confiscated moose. Mr. Scott answered that if there was a court proceeding in the near term, another seized moose would be given. Co-Chair Stedman asked for more data. He was unaware of any moose being run over by a car or boat in Southeast. He thought more definitive answers were needed and thought the species and location could be identified. Mr. Scott identified that road kills of moose primarily occurred in Haines and Yakutat. Senator Kiehl asked if the department was in the position to seize game meat, or if the task was taken on by law enforcement. Mr. Scott relayed that typically ADFG was the first contact with hunters, and if there was a question, the troopers would be contacted for guidance. 9:25:52 AM JOE FELKL, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, noted that DPS also had its own fiscal note. He addressed a new fiscal note from DFG, OMB Component Number 473. He noted that if a person was found guilty of illegally taking game, the court may impose restitution to the state in the amounts under AS 16.05.925(b). The restitution payments were transferred into the Fish and Game Fund in accordance with statue. The deposits were the focus of the fiscal note. The department anticipated a positive revenue impact as a result of the legislation. If enacted, the bill would increase the amount of revenue per restitution payment for the species listed by 55 percent. The amount received by the Division of Wildlife Conservation would also increase by 55 percent. Mr. Felkl noted that the Analysis section of the fiscal note included restitution amounts identified in different years, with a low of $30,000 and a high of over $100,000. The increase could range from approximately $20,000 to a high of approximately $60,000. Based on the uncertainty, the department submitted an indeterminate fiscal note, however it estimated a net positive due to the increased restitution amounts. 9:28:40 AM Senator Wilson asked how an individual would seek restitution under the bill, or if a lawsuit would be filed for restitution. Mr. Felkl noted that the Committee Substitute from the Senate Resources Committee (SRES) clarified the matter, and the restitution would be upon the court overturning a guilty conviction or having a finding a person not guilty. The departments position was that restitution would be automatic. He thought the Court system could address the question. Senator Wilson mentioned the expense of a sheep hunt and pondered restitution of only $2000 as proposed in the bill, which might not cover the airfare for a hunt. He asked if a person could engage in a civil suit against the department, and how often such a thing occurred. Mr. Felkl deferred the question to another agency. 9:30:40 AM LISA PURINTON, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, addressed a new fiscal note from DPS, OMB Component 2746. She identified that the department had a small fiscal note for $10,800. The cost was derived from research compiled by Alaska Wildlife Troopers, from taking a five- year average of cases in which an individual with seized game was found not guilty. The results showed one to two cases per year. The bill would require that the compensation would be required to pay for the seized game and using adjusted restitution rates for two muskoxen. She noted that there had been no data on cases that were appealed or set aside. She believed that there was staff from the Alaska Wildlife Troopers available for questions. Co-Chair Stedman asked if Ms. Purinton had indicated there had been one case per year. Ms. Purinton relayed that there had been one to two cases per year based on the five-year average. Co-Chair Stedman asked about the frequency that the compensation would be implemented and asked for history about the data gathering for the five-year average. 9:33:12 AM COLONEL BERNARD CHASTAIN, DIRECTOR, ALASKA WILDLIFE TROOPERS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), indicated that when considering the impacts of the bill, the department had done a five-year lookback to cases that were found not guilty in court. He continued that Alaska Wildlife Troopers were required by law to seize animals that were determined to be not legal in the field. Animals were seized before a legal process was underway. Once through the court process, a case could be dismissed. Within the five-year lookback, there had been one to two cases per year found not guilty, including seizures of moose, sheep, caribou, and other animals across the state. He thought it was important to note that statute required law enforcement to seize an animal that was thought to be illegally taken. Co-Chair Stedman thought the reasons for animal seizure were clear. He asked if Mr. Chastain could provide the committee with the data from the five-year lookback, including species and location. Col. Chastain agreed to provide the information. Senator Kiehl asked about types of violations and associated trooper policy that would include animal seizure. Col. Chastain relayed that there were different categories of violations and crimes within statute. Some of the violations were listed on the bail schedule, which he likened to a traffic ticket. He mentioned a citation for failure to include evidence of animal sex, after which an animal would not be seized. He noted that typically if a violation was not on the bail schedule, the default crime was a misdemeanor, and the troopers would determine whether the animal would be seized. He mentioned examples of a sub- legal moose, or a cow moose taken out of season, and described scenarios in which an animal would be seized. 9:38:25 AM Senator Bjorkman appreciated the clarification from Col. Chastain regarding the one to two instances per year of cases going to court and not including cases that had been dismissed. He noted that it was his intention for the bill to include language for cases that were dismissed or dropped. He contended that a hunter should not have to go all the way through a court process to get property returned in order to receive just compensation. Senator Bjorkman explained that the reason the bill was coming forward was to ensure that hunters were compensated appropriately, and for hunters to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. He mentioned instances on the Kenai Peninsula in the fall of 2021 in which a hunters moose was seized and later charges were dropped, or the animal was determined to be legal. He emphasized that it was just for the hunter to receive compensation, and many hunters had not. He discussed actions by ADGF in which a panel of three biologists determined whether a moose was legal. The Board of Game had changed ceiling requirements to eliminate the problem and minimize the number of moose that were wrongfully taken. He wanted hunters to be duly compensated when animals were taken that should not have been. Co-Chair Stedman thought the bill mentioned a court order to pay restitution. He asked if the sponsor suggested reverting to an earlier version of the bill, whether he supported amending the bill, or whether he supported the SRES version of the bill. Senator Bjorkman recounted that there had been discussion in the SRES Committee that indicated a desire for a change to be made in order for hunters to be compensated when they were not found guilty. Co-Chair Stedman asked about the bill language. Senator Bjorkman relayed that the bill did not currently have the language, but he would support an amendment to ensure that hunters were compensated fairly if they were not found guilty. SB 168 was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
SB168 Explanation of Changes Ver. A to Ver. R.pdf |
SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 168 |
SB 168 Ver. R Sectional Analysis 3.27.24.pdf |
SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 168 |
SB 168 Ver. R Sponsor Statement 3.27.24.pdf |
SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 168 |
SB 215 NBCT Incentives by state 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
SB 215 Research LAUSD NBCT report 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
SB 215 Research NBCT Impact Brief 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
SB 215 Research NBCT Mississippi Reading Outcomes 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
SB 215 Research NBCT Retention Information 2020 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
SB 215 Research NBPTS Certification 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
SB 215 Sponsor Statement 02.07.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
SB 215 Summary of Changes Version S to Version U 02.26.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/26/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
SB 215 Testimony - Received as of 02.17.2024.pdf |
SEDC 2/19/2024 3:30:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
SB 215 Ver U Sectional Analysis 2.2.24.pdf |
SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
SB 215 EDC EED SSA 041224.pdf |
SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 215 |
SB 168 DFG DWC 941324.pdf |
SFIN 4/16/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 168 |