BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1249
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1249 (Wolk)
As Amended August 22, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :27-7
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 10-1
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Halderman, Bill |Ayes:|Gatto, Blumenfield, |
| |Berryhill, Blumenfield, | |Bradford, |
| |Campos, Fong, Gatto, | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| |Roger Hernández, Hueso, | |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, |
| |Yamada | |Hill, Cedillo, Mitchell, |
| | | |Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Beth Gaines |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Authorizes the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to
enter into agreements with nonprofit conservation groups for the
management and operation of DFG managed lands, and requires
purchase of an entry permit to access department-managed lands.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes DFG to enter into agreements for the management and
operation of department-managed lands with nonprofit
conservation groups or resource conservation districts.
2)Defines department-managed lands for these purposes to include
lands or lands and water acquired for public shooting grounds,
state marine (estuarine) recreational management areas,
ecological reserves, and wildlife management areas.
3)Requires that such agreements be consistent with approved
management plans and the purpose for which the lands were
acquired and managed by DFG, and requires that any changes to
the management plan be subject to public review and comment.
4)Reaffirms existing law providing that multiple recreational
use of department-managed lands is desirable and shall be
SB 1249
Page 2
encouraged by the Fish and Game Commission (FGC). Provides
that except for hunting and fishing only minimal facilities to
permit other forms of multiple recreational uses, such as
camping, picnicking, boating, or swimming shall be provided.
States that hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, wildlife
photography, conservation education, and fish and wildlife
research are the priority uses compatible with
department-managed lands. Provides that other public uses may
be authorized by FGC by regulation and may be subject to a
special use permit. Further provides that fees for any use
privileges may be set by the FGC and collected by DFG.
5)Requires, commencing January 1, 2015, DFG to require the
purchase of an entry permit for nonconsumptive uses of
department-managed lands if DFG finds it is practical and
cost-effective to collect entry permit fees. Defines
nonconsumptive uses to mean compatible uses other than hunting
and fishing. Allows DFG to require the purchase of an entry
permit for nonconsumptive uses only if a sign providing notice
of the requirement has been posted at the land. Requires DFG,
to the extent feasible, to allow nonconsumptive users to
purchase an entry permit onsite, and requires DFG to use DFG's
online Automated License Data System (ALDS) to sell the
permits. Requires that the user have the permit in their
immediate possession while on department-managed lands. Makes
failure to obtain an entry permit an infraction. Persons with
a valid hunting license, sport fishing license or trapping
license would be exempt from the entry permit requirement.
6)Requires that moneys generated from the use fees or entry
permits shall be deposited in the Native Species Conservation
and Enhancement Account within the Fish and Game Preservation
Fund and available upon appropriation to DFG for management
and operation of its lands. If the source of the fee revenue
collected can be identified, no less than 35% of the funds
generated shall go to the lands from which the fee revenue was
collected.
7)Requires that proposed expenditures from a county fish and
wildlife propagation fund shall be reviewed first at a meeting
of the county board of supervisors or county fish and game
commission to ensure compliance with existing law requiring
expenditures from propagation funds to be used for specified
purposes related to fish and wildlife conservation.
SB 1249
Page 3
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires DFG to manage and operate lands and waters acquired
for public shooting grounds, state marine recreational
management areas, or wildlife management areas.
2)Requires DFG to operate its lands on a nonprofit basis and to
accommodate multiple uses, including hunting and fishing.
3)Authorizes the FGC to charge fees for any use privilege at
these lands and allows DFG to issue annual or per-day wildlife
area passes for DFG managed lands. Annual passes are $10. Day
passes are $2. Persons with valid hunting, trapping, or
fishing licenses are exempt as are school group tours and
persons under 16 years of age.
4)Requires many fines and forfeitures established in the Fish
and Game Code to be divided between the state and the county
where the fine was collected. Fish and Game fines paid to the
counties are required to be deposited in a county fish and
wildlife propagation fund and expended for the protection,
conservation, propagation and preservation of fish and
wildlife.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)One-time costs of approximately $200,000 to DFG to modify its
ALDS to allow issuance of site-specific non-consumptive use
access passes (Fish and Game Preservation Fund). The costs
would not be covered by access pass fee revenue since the
access pass fee cannot be collected until the ALDS is
modified.
2)Annual revenue, beginning in 2014-15, of an unknown but
significant amount from the sale of access passes. DFG
estimates revenues ranging between $550,000 and $2.2 million,
based on a compliance rate ranging between 5% and 20% and
assuming no drop in visitation at DFG-managed lands as a
result of imposition of the access pass fee.
3)Potential minor cost, possibly in the tens of thousands of
dollars, to the extent the Commission on State Mandates
determines the review requirement on expenditures from a
county fish and wildlife propagation fund to be a reimbursable
SB 1249
Page 4
state mandate. Because the bill requires the reviews to be
conducted during regularly scheduled meetings, costs should be
insignificant, reimbursable or not.
COMMENTS : The author has introduced this bill to improve DFG's
ability to manage its more than one million acres of lands,
including wildlife management areas, under its jurisdiction.
This bill would accomplish this in three ways: 1) by requiring
all users of DFG lands to pay a fee to access these lands; 2) by
authorizing DFG to enter into agreements with nonprofit wildlife
conservation groups and resource conservation districts to
assist with management and operation of DFG lands; and, 3) by
clarifying priority, compatible uses for DFG lands.
DFG manages over one million acres of fish and wildlife habitat
throughout the state. Currently, hunters and fishers pay
license, tag and stamp fees that contribute to the costs of
managing department lands. However, other recreational users
are currently only required to purchase a pass to access seven
wildlife management areas and ecological reserves but can access
most department-managed lands that are open to public access for
free. Hunters and fishermen also contribute to wildlife habitat
conservation through payment of federal taxes on hunting and
fishing equipment.
The need for the costs of wildlife habitat management to be born
more broadly by all recreational users of DFG lands was raised
and discussed in the stakeholder advisory group for the DFG
Strategic Vision process without opposition. While it may be
appropriate that consumptive users like hunters and fishers pay
a higher proportional cost, the concept that all users should
contribute toward the costs of habitat management appears to be
broadly accepted.
The author's office also notes that the six activities cited in
this bill as priority compatible uses for department-managed
lands - hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, wildlife
photography, conservation education and research - are also the
six priority public uses identified in federal law for the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
Supporters note this bill will enhance operation, maintenance
and funding of DFG managed lands; provide consistency between
public use regulations on state and federal wildlife refuges;
help prevent public uses incompatible with wildlife conservation
SB 1249
Page 5
objectives on DFG lands; authorize cooperative agreements to
assist in DFG lands management; provide additional funding for
land management in a manner accessible and convenient to the
public; and, ensure greater accountability in expenditure of
county fish and wildlife propagation funds. Opponents object to
allowing private contracts for management of DFG lands and
assert penalties for non-consumptive users who access DFG lands
without an entry permit should be higher.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0005288