SB 164-FISH & GAME: OFFENSES; LICENSES; PENALTIES  3:31:49 PM CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SB 164. She noted that staff at the Alaska Departments of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Public Safety (DPS), and Law (DOL) testified at a previous hearing, and she opened up the hearing to public testimony, limited to two minutes each. 3:33:32 PM BYRON CHARLES, representing himself, Ketchikan, Alaska, said he recently saw a dead sea lion with a triple-hook stuck in its throat, which was likely the result of the sea lion's attempt to grab a snagged salmon. These "fish wars" in Alaska need to be better contained to prevent people from hurting each other, he said. The new policies proposed in SB 164 need serious amendments, he noted. "What kind of penalty can you put or impose on somebody when a sea lion has a triple-hook stuck in its throat?" He said he grew up snagging fish with halibut hooks, but the triple-hooks need to be outlawed. Additionally, section 1 of SB 164 "should be fly fishing only," he stated. 3:36:33 PM MIKE TINKER, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, Fairbanks, Alaska, said the public did not get to testify at the first hearing, but the first sections of SB 164 are fine, "and probably going to the class A [misdemeanor] just reflects the modernization." He questioned the deletion of "upon conviction," as it seems a person would have to be convicted before getting fines and restitutions. The new fines are good, he said, because some of the current levels are archaic. MR. TINKER expressed concern in trying to recoup federal matching funds; "both from the fish side and on the wildlife side, that's a reimbursement program." When a legislator asks how much the state has to pay for the management of a caribou in order to get a reimbursable figure to add into the fine is a very difficult thing to do, he said, "one that would likely cost many, many times what would come out of the fine." He said his point is that if "you took the eligible Pittman-Robertson money on caribou, for example, where we have hundreds of thousands of them, and divided it by the hundreds of thousands of dollars we spend on qualifying characteristics, we'd come up with a dollar a caribou, and at three-to-one, you could recover three bucks." He said he does not see how Alaska could do that without "running the cost of the thing way out into the future." Mr. Tinker gave the example of someone getting a fine for [taking] a caribou, "and then the retribution for Pittman-Robertson ... comes the following October when the state makes its reimbursement charge." He said it is unclear and he would like that clarified, but he does not see it "as a doable thing." MR. TINKER said other amendments are needed, and one thing his group has been on top of for several years is "geography getting in the way, and that is the application of restitution" where it is applied in some cases and not in others. He said first-time unintentional, technical violators who turn themselves in should be exempt, "otherwise we're not getting the bang for our buck to try to get hunters in the field; the idea is not to scare every single new or inexperienced hunter out of the field because [the hunter] might get slapped down." CHAIR GIESSEL suggested Mr. Tinker submit a letter with his suggestions and questions. 3:40:55 PM AL BARRETTE, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, said he is a member of the Fairbanks Advisory Committee and other outdoor organizations. He stated that SB 164 is well thought out and goes in the right direction, but he suggested a restitution exemption for self-reporting violators who salvage all of their game and surrender it to wildlife enforcement. [The change] will not take anything away from public safety, he opined. The court system uses this penalty arbitrarily, he said, and he gave the examples of Judge David [Zwink] who adds restitution to plea bargain deals on self-reported violations and Superior Court Judge [Richard Erlich] who charged three Point Hope residents who killed up to 37 caribou without salvaging the meat with wanton waste and did not issue a fine, community service, or any kind of education requirement. "He actually said it was a nominal charge," and that is very disturbing that wanton waste of Alaska's wildlife is just a nominal incident, he stated. MR. BARRETTE suggested removing "sport" from resident fishing licenses, because there are at least 20,000 to 40,000 Alaskans who subsistence fish and do not contribute since they are not required to have a license. "I think the second largest users of our fish resources, which is subsistence, ought to pay a little bit of something into our management of our fish resources," he concluded. 3:44:03 PM RICHARD DAVIS, Seafood Producers Cooperative (SPC), Sitka, Alaska, explained that the SPC is a fishing business collective and cold storage in Sitka, owned and operated by 600 fishers, most of whom are Alaskans. He explained that SPC has been operating since 1945 when the cooperative provided fish liver oil for WWII, and it is the oldest and largest fishery cooperative of its kind in North America. Mr. Davis noted that section 6 of SB 164 doubles the maximum fines for first and second convictions for fishery violations but does not double the maximum fine for a third conviction. In view of Alaska's demerit point system that fishers operate under, they can only collect so many points of offenses against their licenses before losing them for one to three years. "The third conviction could be any number you wanted to put in there because under the three-strikes-and-out and the strict liability risk that you incur if you have violations of a strict liability nature, you could lose your boat and your permits, and it's been done," he said. He noted that the current bill version does not double the maximum fine for any of the 12 listed game species. He said his fishermen believe that if fines are doubled, it should be done uniformly across all of the revenues collected through the penal system. If there is a chronic fisheries compliance problem somewhere in Alaska that can be pointed out to Mr. Davis, then he would be willing to reconsider. Alaska's commercial salmon fishers are earning less money for their products than they were ten years ago, he stated. 3:46:41 PM SENATOR COGHILL suggested that Mr. Davis write down specific concerns about the fines for the committee. 3:47:17 PM SENATOR GIESSEL asked if there were any witnesses wanting to testify, and, hearing none, closed public testimony. 3:48:13 PM BERNARD CHASTAIN, Deputy Director, Alaska Wildlife Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), Anchorage, noted that a witness asked why the term "upon conviction" was removed, and he pointed out that section 16 on page 5 of SB 164 refers to a person "who is convicted." CHAIR GIESSEL asked about the reference on page 5, line 26. 3:49:07 PM AARON PETERSON, Attorney, Criminal Division, Department of Law, Anchorage, said "upon conviction" was superfluous since misdemeanor fines are not imposed without convictions. CHAIR GIESSEL referred to the question about doubling fines for a second conviction but not for more convictions. 3:50:25 PM MR. PETERSON said that fines for first and second convictions were set in 1988, but fines for subsequent convictions were set later and do not need inflation adjustments. CHAIR GIESSEL suggested that the fines were not increased so much as they were adjusted for justification. MR. PETERSON said he was not involved in setting the fines; however, the increase does mirror inflation rates. 3:52:12 PM SENATOR MICCICHE said he would like to know when big game fines were set to see if the adjustments are fair. Adjusting for inflation is a good way to raise fines, he said. He asked about a 50 percent reduction in fines for self-reporting violations, "so we don't have the waste that's associated without that self- reporting." 3:53:40 PM MR. CHASTAIN said the legislature set the current restitution amounts in 1996. He stated that DPS is not concerned so much with the amount of the fine; however, it supports the concept of reducing or eliminating restitution for a "self-turn-in" to encourage people to bring in carcasses. "In fact, that is a policy of our department to not apply restitution to people who turn themselves in ... and we have an established history of doing that," he added. Troopers make such recommendations to district attorneys, but there have been a few times where judges have decided it would be more appropriate to apply restitution. He said having flexibility is important, and not applying restitution would encourage people to bring in animals that were illegally taken. 3:55:27 PM SENATOR MICCICHE said it makes people less likely to cut their gear loose if they "wouldn't be fined by harvesting all the fish." He said it is something to think about for the next committee. He said he remains concerned about the tags or permits in [subsections] (f) and (g) of section 3 that must be validated upon harvest, because "it clearly doesn't work in electronic form for something that has to be validated." 3:56:53 PM SENATOR COGHILL asked if it is true that subsistence harvesters do not have to be licensed. 3:57:59 PM SETH BEAUSANG, Attorney, Alaska Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska, said some subsistence fisheries require permits, but not all. 3:58:22 PM SENATOR COGHILL asked if there are 20,000 to 40,000 subsistence users as stated by the previous witness. MR. BEAUSANG said he does not know. SENATOR COGHILL requested the number of subsistence users and the number of issued sport fishing licenses. It is a legitimate point if the state does not know how many fish are being taken, he stated. 3:59:39 PM SENATOR MICCICHE suggested that the witness was referring to the difference between subsistence and personal use, where one requires a license and one does not. SENATOR COGHILL said the confusion is not surprising, "because it divides Alaskans pretty well ... between the personal use and subsistence use; however, it would be nice to know how many subsistence usage permits are there, if any." SENATOR GIESSEL asked Senator Coghill to pose his question to the next witness. 4:01:16 PM BRUCE DALE, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Palmer, asked him if he is asking only about personal use fisheries. SENATOR COGHILL said it is fisheries; how does a person distinguish between personal use and subsistence fisheries, and do they both require permits or licenses? MR. DALE replied that he would get back to Senator Coghill. 4:02:02 PM SENATOR MICCICHE asked why [AS 16.05.782(d)] was not in section 8 of the bill. 4:02:45 PM MR. PETERSON clarified that subsection (d) is not being amended. SENATOR MICCICHE spoke of a situation where a person who never breaks laws is hunting bears and stumbles within a half mile of a solid waste disposal facility and "drops a bear and a brown- shirt comes." Will there be any leniency if the hunter did not intend to use the waste facility as bait? 4:04:22 PM MR. CHASTAIN said that section deals with taking brown bears near solid waste disposal sites. "What is attempting to be done here is that it makes it a violation if we cannot prove that negligence was part of it," he added. 4:05:13 PM SENATOR MICCICHE interpreted Mr. Chastain's reply to mean that the DPS would be reasonable in its approach. 4:05:58 PM CHAIR GIESSEL noted that many concerns with SB 164 are related to judicial matters, so she advocated moving it on to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 4:06:25 PM SENATOR COSTELLO moved to report SB 164, version 29-GS2958\A, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). 4:06:39 PM CHAIR GIESSEL announced that without objection, SB 164 is reported from committee.