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.