BILL ANALYSIS
SB 589
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 1, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
SB 589 (Harman) - As Amended: June 11, 2009
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 12-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill would establish two new accounts within the Fish and
Game Preservation Fund (FGPF): the Upland Game Bird Preservation
Account and the Big Game Management Account. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Establishes the Upland Game Bird Preservation Account (UGBPA)
within the FGPF to receive all funds from the sale of upland
game bird hunting validations and stamps.
2)Establishes the Big Game Management Account (BGMA) within the
FGPF to receive all funds from the sale of tags for the
hunting of antelope, elk, deer, wild pig, bear and sheep.
3)Requires the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to use the
funds deposited into the UPBPA or the BGMA solely for
acquisitions, projects, and programs to benefit upland game
birds or big game, respectively, as well as reasonable
administrative and enforcement costs.
4)Directs an UGBPA advisory committee and a BGMA advisory
committee to advise DFG on expenditures from the corresponding
account.
5)Requires the DFG to maintain on its Web site information on
projects funded from each account.
6)Requires DFG to post on its Web site and include in the annual
State Budget fund condition statements for each account.
FISCAL EFFECT
SB 589
Page 2
1)Minor, absorbable one-time costs to establish UGBPA and BGMA.
(FGPF.)
2)Redirection of approximately $9.5 million from the FGPF to the
two subaccounts created by this bill-about $8 million to the
BGMA and about $1.5 million to the UGBPA. The department
indicates that creation of these subaccounts will not limit
its ability to manage the funds deposited into those accounts.
3)Minor ongoing costs to DFG, likely less than $50,000 annually,
to administer funds and maintain required fund information on
its Web site. (FGPF.)
SB 589
Page 3
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends this bill will allow greater
transparency, accountability and oversight to ensure that
hunting license tag and stamp funds are used to benefit game
species and their habitats.
2)Background .
a) Regulation of Hunting . Existing law establishes hunting
seasons, bag limits, and other restrictions on hunting game
in California, including the requirement that hunters
obtain a seasonal hunting license. In addition, hunters may
be required to purchase tags to permit the hunting of
specific animals, such as deer, elk, bear, wild pigs,
antelope, bighorn sheep, and upland game birds. Revenue
from the sale of these licenses and tags is deposited in
the FGPF and is available for expenditure, upon
appropriation, for projects that benefit the animals from
which the funds were generated. For example, DFG may
expend revenue from the sale of elk hunting tags for
projects that specifically benefit elk populations.
b) History of Concern with Management of Fish and Game
Preservation Fund. In 2005, a state audit on DFG's
administration of the FGPF criticized the department's use
of those funds to cover deficits in other funds.
Similarly, in 2006, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO)
found "inappropriate budgeting practices" in regard to
DFG's management of the FGPF, including inappropriately
shifting money within the FGPF to cover deficits within the
fund and failing to provide key budget information to the
Legislature.
3)Related Legislation. SB 1535 (Kuehl, Chapter 667, Statutes of
2006) adopted a number of recommendations made by the LAO in
its review of DFG's management of the FGPF, including
requiring the Secretary for Resources to annually report on
the fund conditions accounts of the FGPF as part of the annual
budget process.
4)Supporters , including several hunting and game organizations,
as well as the California Council of Land Trusts, contend this
bill continues recent efforts to ensure that revenues from the
sale of hunting licenses and tags are used for game habitat
SB 589
Page 4
improvements and conservation activities. In addition,
supporters assert that combining revenues from the sale of
tags for a variety of game species allow DFG more flexibility
to undertake projects that provide broad habitat benefits.
5)Opponents , who object to hunting in general, object to the
bill because it dedicates funding to habitat for hunting. The
Department of Finance (DOF) objected to an earlier version of
this bill that did not explicitly allow account funds to be
used for indirect administration, such as accounting and
information technology support. The author took amendments
that appear to have addressed DOF's concerns; however, because
DOF has not completed its analysis of the current version of
the bill, it is unclear whether DOF remains opposed to the
bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081