Opinion ID: 1196827
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether forfeiture of the bond was an excessive penalty.

Text: The owners of the vessel complain, on the other hand, that even forfeiture of the bond was an abuse of the trial court's discretion under AS 16.05.195 to order forfeiture of all, part, or none of the res. See One Cocktail Glass v. State, 565 P.2d 1265, 1271 n. 11 (Alaska 1977). They argue that the uncertainty of the law regulating the crab fishery prior to the Bundrant decision mitigated the seriousness of the vessel's offenses. Hansen and Hjelle in addition contend they are being unduly penalized because they were not on board the vessel at the time of the alleged infractions. Yet the owners admit their awareness of the pendency of the Bundrant appeal during the 1975-76 season and therefore of the unsettled nature of the jurisdictional question in the courts of this state. We have already concluded that the regulatory scheme in effect gave adequate notice to the vessel's owners of the violations alleged. In this light the stated position of the owners if anything evidences a willingness to deliberately violate existing laws in hopes that they will be declared invalid at a later date. The fact that two of the active partners in the operation of the vessel were not on board when the violations occurred does not relieve them of responsibility for its illegal use, as has already been discussed. The violations alleged involved taking for commercial profit a crucial biological resource of the state, the existence of which depends on careful regulation of harvest. In these circumstances we hold that forfeiture of the bond and crab sale proceeds was not an abuse of the superior court's discretion.