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