Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/11/1997 01:36 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 11, 1997
1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 25
"An Act relating to the issuance of hunting, trapping, and
noncommercial fishing licenses, tags, and permits and to residency
for fish and game purposes; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 25(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 25
SHORT TITLE: FISH & GAME: LICENSES & RESIDENCY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OGAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 34 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 34 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 34 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/03/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/03/97 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/05/97 241 (H) FSH RPT 2DP 2NR
02/05/97 241 (H) DP: OGAN, AUSTERMAN
02/05/97 241 (H) NR: KUBINA, IVAN
02/05/97 241 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS, F&G)
02/05/97 241 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
02/11/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JOEL L. HARD, Lieutenant, Commander
Commercial Crimes Bureau
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
Telephone: (907) 269-5409
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 25.
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 25.
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 25.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-10, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Masek, Dyson,
Green, Williams, Nicholia and Joule. Representative Barnes joined
the meeting at 1:37 p.m.
HB 25 - FISH & GAME: LICENSES & RESIDENCY
Number 115
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the committee would hear House Bill
No. 25, "An Act relating to the issuance of hunting, trapping, and
noncommercial fishing licenses, tags, and permits and to residency
for fish and game purposes; and providing for an effective date."
He called upon Co-Chairman Ogan to present the sponsor statement.
Number 129
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN, sponsor of HB 25, explained his reasons for
introducing the bill. Some years earlier, he had become aware of
a man who, to Co-Chairman Ogan's knowledge, had never spent 12
consecutive months in the state. For a number of years in a row,
this man came to Alaska for two or three months at a time to hunt
and fish, using resident licenses to do so. "And I had numerous
conversations with Fish and Wildlife Protection at the time," Co-
Chairman Ogan stated. "They could never really do anything about
it because the statutes defining Title 16, or fish and game
residency, were too vague. So one of the first things I decided to
do when I became a legislator is to try to tighten up ... that
statute. And in discussions with Fish and Wildlife Protection and
the Department of Law, I found that this wasn't an isolated
incident, that the statute needed some work, and hence comes forth
this bill."
Number 233
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that the previous session's bill had
passed both bodies. However, there were changes in the Senate with
which the House did not concur, resulting in the bill dying in the
last moments of the legislature.
Number 261
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained that HB 25 eliminates some subjective
language and changes the language regarding "permanent place of
abode." While Alaska Statutes contain no definition for "permanent
place of abode", there is a definition of "domicile", which is also
clearly defined in Black's Law Dictionary, he said.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN emphasized that HB 25 in no way changed the status
currently enjoyed by the U.S. military. It did, however, include
in statute the U.S. Coast Guard. Although the U.S. Coast Guard had
always been considered the military for purposes of residency in
Alaska, that had not been officially defined. "So we cleaned up
that as well," Co-Chairman Ogan said. "And it's my hopes that this
will give Fish and Wildlife Protection and the Department of Law
some tools to prosecute those who would exploit our resources
without paying their fair share."
Number 393
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked whether the process of checking
and cross-checking residency, if those occurred, would cost money
that needed to be reflected in a fiscal note.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN deferred to the Department of Public Safety for a
response.
Number 446
JOEL L. HARD, Lieutenant, Commander, Commercial Crimes Bureau,
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection, Department of Public
Safety, said, "I don't believe that it will cost us any additional
resources to prosecute cases arising from this new legislation. We
already are inundated with such cases, and we spend a lot of time
and energy pursuing those cases. This legislation, I think, will
simplify the process and probably lessen the amount of time that we
spend on these types of cases, just by virtue of the language
change."
Number 519
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN noted there were residency requirements
for the Longevity Bonus, the Permanent Fund Dividend and fishing
and hunting licenses. He asked if it would be possible to have one
residency definition, for broad use throughout the state, to
preclude having to look in different sections of the statutes to
determine specific residency requirements.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked George Utermohle to respond, saying he
knew of no one more knowledgeable about this.
Number 586
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, responded that certainly the
state could adopt a uniform residency requirement. He noted that
obviously the legislature, in addressing each issue and program,
had decided, based on the nature of the programs, that certain
criteria should apply. However, nothing prevented the legislature
from going to a uniform scheme. He pointed out that for general
purposes, a uniform definition of resident was contained in Title
1, which applied anywhere in the statutes except where a different
definition was applied.
Number 628
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether Mr. Utermohle thought there was
any possibility that by having multiple definitions of residency,
problems or conflicts might be created.
MR. UTERMOHLE indicated it was possible for a person to be eligible
to participate in one program as a resident yet be a nonresident
for other programs, depending on the different definitions for
those programs.
Number 676
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated, "You know, we create indicia of
residency on the basis of what intentions we have. For example, in
some instances, we found that the courts have struck down the long-
standing residency on the Longevity Bonus, for example. In other
cases, we've established an indicia of residency on the basis of
how long they had fished in the state of Alaska, and I believe in
some instances there might be a two-year residency for certain
licenses or loans. Am I correct on that, George?"
MR. UTERMOHLE replied, "I think there may well still be a two-year
residency requirement for commercial fishing loans."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said, "So in answer to your question,
Representative Green, I think it's up to us. But there is sort of
a standard definition as to what these indicia are, for example,
that you have to have a residency here, that you essentially have
to declare your residency here in the state and nowhere else and
those kind of things."
Number 753
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he understood that. However, there were
four pages of legislation before them. "Most of this bill has to
do with the residency or the definition thereof," he pointed out.
"And a reference might just take a line or two, whereas we're going
to add to statute books a considerable amount of verbiage. And all
of us are complaining that we constantly expand our statute books."
Representative Green suggested there should be a way to have the
definition in one place for reference.
Number 824
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated, "This was a concern that was articulated
pretty loudly by the Department of Law when I originally introduced
the bill. And in the interim of the first session, I travelled to
Juneau, and my chief aide at the time did, and we had a long sit-
down meeting with the Department of Law. George Utermohle was
there, Fish and Wildlife Protection, Fish and Game, myself. And
these concerns were very carefully addressed, because anytime you
open up a residency issue, red flags do go up with the Department
of Law because they've litigated so many residency cases. So there
was a lot of thought that was put into this ... description, that
it would be homogenous with the other descriptions and address the
problem that we have." Co-Chairman Ogan suggested that it was a
good trade-off.
Number 903
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES stated she had some input into the
question raised by Representative Green. "If memory serves me
correctly, there is a whole set of case law that has developed
through the years as it relates to the residency requirements in
statute. And more or less for each area that you have a residency
requirement, whether it be student loan, Longevity Bonus or fish
and game or any of the other residency requirements, there has to
be a cause and effect as to the length of residency and to ...
whatever you charge for a license or how you establish age groups
for different types of residencies. Is that not correct, Mr.
Utermohle?"
Number 948
MR. UTERMOHLE replied, "Yes, that is the case. In each case where
you address the issue of residency, there has to be a relationship
between the period of residency and the benefits that you're
conditioning upon that residency."
Number 991
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded, "But it just seems to me that if we
have, let's just take an example of a half a dozen places that
refer to residency requirements, and in those half-dozen references
they all reiterate what is a resident, and 90 percent of that is
all the same, that you could by reference say, `residency is this,
is the same as it is in AS whatever, that's residency, with the
exception of this and this.'"
MR. UTERMOHLE suggested, "The period or the time."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Whatever. Whatever that's different
about this ... from all the other residencies. But to just
continue to muck up our statute books with repetitive residency
requirements, because a lot of these are the same in -- no matter
which one you look at."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested that Steven Daugherty might wish to
comment.
Number 1037
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, came forward to
testify. Because he dealt exclusively with the Department of Fish
and Game and the Board of Fisheries, Mr. Daugherty said he was not
too familiar with residency requirements in other areas of statute.
However, he believed there was a great value to having the
residency requirement explicitly laid out in the fish and game
statutes. Commercial fishing, in particular, was a highly-
regulated industry. Mr. Daugherty believed many commercial
fishermen carried Title 16 around with them. He suggested if the
definition was by reference to some other statute, they would not
have that available.
MR. DAUGHERTY said the Department of Law believed the bill as
proposed would make the residency requirement much more
enforceable. "It would substantially ease the burden of
enforcement and will basically tighten it up," he said. He cited
the example of a person having a cabin in Alaska, coming up for the
summer to hunt and fish but going elsewhere for the winter. That
person would no longer be able to claim a permanent place of abode
in Alaska and, therefore, residency for purposes of fish and game
licenses. "They will now be in the same situation as anyone else
who just comes up for the summer," Mr. Daugherty said. "Because
they do not have a domicile in Alaska, they would not qualify as a
resident."
MR. DAUGHERTY pointed out a considerable body of law exists
defining "domicile." He concluded, "Also, domicile is explicitly
defined at AS 16.05.940, so we believe that this will greatly
improve the enforceability of the statute."
Number 1159
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked for confirmation that the Department of
Law fully agreed with the bill.
MR. DAUGHERTY replied, "Yes, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the bill
will improve enforceability."
Number 1175
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked what impact it would have on
commercial fishermen coming up from Seattle and Oregon to fish
along the coast.
MR. DAUGHERTY said it would have no real impact except on a few
people who had been claiming residency because they owned property
in Alaska that they claimed as an abode. Impacts on most people
who had been following the current law would be minimal. "It's
really only going to be those people who were trying to find a
loophole in the law that will be affected by this change," he said.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested it may have a positive effect.
Number 1228
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Several times you've made reference to
`abode' and that's being taken out in favor of `domicile.' And on
page 1, they refer to a `home.' Do you see any problems with
changing from, first of all, changing from `abode' to `domicile,'
and that obviously was by intent, and then the fact in one place
it's `home,' another place it's `domicile'?" Representative Green
noted that page 1, line 14, referred to `home.' On page 2, lines
1 and 28, it referred to `domicile.' And on page 3, line 24, as
well as on page 4, line 17, it replaced a `a permanent place of
abode' with `domicile.'
Number 1268
MR. DAUGHERTY said he did not see a problem with that.
MR. UTERMOHLE explained `place of abode' and `domicile' have
similar meanings in common law, essentially, making a place a home
and intending to maintain that home on a permanent basis. He said,
"In the statute, we're eliminating the word `place of abode'
because it also has other connotations like just the place where
you happen to be living at the moment, without intent to remain
there. So we're taking that out of the bill and replacing it with
the term `domicile,' which is defined in statute essentially as the
place where you make your home and intend to permanently remain.
In this regard, in the provisions of the bill where we talk about
someone making a home in the state and permanently remaining there,
and then going on, referring to `domicile,' there's no inherent
conflict ...." Mr. Utermohle said `domicile' and `home' were being
referred to in the same context. In that regard, he saw no problem
with the two terms being used in the same section.
Number 1374
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated his understanding that `domicile' and
`abode' were different, but `home' and `domicile' were compatible.
MR. UTERMOHLE clarified, "`Domicile' and `place of abode' in the
common law have basically the same meaning. But it can also have
other meanings which are judicially applied to the terms. And in
this statute, we're going to the term `domicile' because it has a
fixed statutory definition and avoiding the uncertainty that arises
from the need to judicially define the term `place of abode.' And
in this state, we don't have a defined term for `place of abode' in
Title 16."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "So `home' then is not in conflict.
That isn't somewhere else in statute that might be the same problem
with `abode.'"
MR. UTERMOHLE responded, "I don't see that problem existing."
Number 1422
MR. DAUGHERTY read the definition of `domicile' from AS
16.05.940(11), which is "the true and permanent home of a person
from which the person has no present intention of moving and to
which the person intends to return whenever the person is away;
domicile may be proved by presenting evidence acceptable to the
boards of fisheries and game". Mr. Daugherty stated, "That
basically shows that `home' is an aspect of `domicile.' So the two
terms are not in conflict."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON indicated his desire to adopt the committee
substitute before them.
Number 1470
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded, "So moved, Mr. Chairman."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if there was any objection to adopting
Work Draft 0-LS0163\E, Utermohle, 2/11/97, as the committee
substitute. There being no objection, it was adopted.
Number 1470
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion that CSHB 25(RES) move from
committee with zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations.
She asked unanimous consent.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS asked whether anyone was on
teleconference to testify.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted that the only person listed, Lieutenant
Hard, had already testified.
Number 1498
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if there was an objection to the motion to
move the bill. There being no objection, CSHB 25(RES) moved from
the House Resources Standing Committee with individual
recommendations and zero fiscal notes.
Number 1525
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised that the next meeting would be Thursday,
February 13, to hear HB 28, regarding repeal of the Coastal Zone
Management program. He urged members to review materials.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 2:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|