SB 1166 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis

BILL ANALYSIS �

-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

BILL NO: SB 1166 HEARING DATE: April 10, 2012

AUTHOR: Berryhill URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 18, 2012 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Department of Fish and Game: Big Game Management
Account.

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Existing law in the Fish and Game Code and in regulations of the
California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) establish hunting
seasons, bag limits, and other statutory qualifications and
restrictions for the hunting of game in California. Additional
provisions are specific to various species. For example,
existing provisions explicitly provide for a licensed hunter to
supplement his or her license with "tags" that allow the lawful
take of various species, including deer, elk, bear, wild pigs,
antelope, bighorn sheep, and upland game birds.

Existing law requires the Director of the Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) and the Secretary for Resources to annually report on
the fund condition of the department's various accounts that
comprise the Fish and Game Preservation Fund as part of the
annual budget process. This was a provision of SB 1535 (Kuehl)
that implemented a recommendation of the LAO which was concerned
about the accounting practices of DFG. In 2004, a state audit
noted accounting issues with various dedicated accounts within
the Fish and Game Preservation Fund that have been addressed to
a certain extent both with remedial legislation and internally
within the department.

In 2010, SB 1058 (Harman) was passed and signed. This bill
responded to several concerns from stakeholders and comments by
the LAO and others that DFG was not properly accounting for
funds contributed for these species. SB 1058 consolidated
several big game accounts into a new Big Game Management account
at DFG. The affected separate accounts were those for antelope,
1

elk, deer, wild pig, bear, and bighorn sheep. That law imposed
restrictions on the sorts of expenditures DFG could make and
basically directed DFG to spend those dollars on projects that
benefited those species. Similar language was placed into the
separate upland game bird account. That law also established an
advisory committee for the big game management and upland bird
accounts that would review and comment on proposed expenditures.

PROPOSED LAW
The recent amendments to this bill delete the original
provisions about DFG land management and instead offer new,
mainly technical, proposals on hunting laws:

1. Nonprofit groups that help the department with the sale of
deer or bighorn sheep tags would be able to recoup their costs
or up to 10% of the amount for which the tags are sold.

2. This bill would offer further direction to DFG regarding
funds generated from the sale of licenses or tags for the
enumerated big game and upland bird species. First, the bill
would establish that the primary purpose of the funds is to
undertake conservation or land acquisition projects that
specifically benefit these species and that expand public access
to hunting of those species. As a secondary purpose, funds could
be used to pay for the direct administrative and enforcement
costs of the department related to its activities toward these
species. DFG would be directed to post on its web site the
expenditures from the fund. The role of the advisory committee
would be expanded to review and comment on the administrative
and enforcement costs.

3. The bill makes two technical changes to the existing sections
about deer tag and bighorn sheep tag sales to reflect that
nonprofit groups may recoup their administrative costs as noted
above.

4. Legislative Counsel is also proposing several technical
changes to this section of the code.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, SB 1058 (Harman) sought to provide
greater transparency and accountability with regard to the
Department of Fish and Game's expenditure of specific hunter
generated revenues. Prior to passage of the legislation these
funds were used by DFG for unrelated purposes. The author points
out that in 2006 only 62% of deer tag revenue, 64% of wild pig
2

tag revenue, and 48% of wild sheep auction tag revenue was used
for related conservation work. DFG has been addressing many of
the shortfalls in certain accounts. However, the author is
concerned that recent data provided by DFG shows excessively
high levels of administrative and enforcement costs being
charged to the big game management account. As of late
February, 2012, DFG was proposing to spend 52% of the 2012-2013
projected expenditures on administrative and enforcement costs.

The author notes that SB 1166 seeks to clarify that the priority
use of funds in the big game management account shall be used
for programs and projects that benefit the related game species
and their habitats. Secondarily, funds from the big game
management account may also be used for reasonable
administrative and enforcement costs.

The first provision in SB 1166 would allow nonprofit
organizations that, on behalf of DFG, sell game species
fundraising tags to keep 10% of the proceeds to offset costs
associated with the promotion and sale of the fundraising tags.
Often, nonprofit organizations go to great lengths and expense
to promote, advertise, and sell game species fundraising tags.
It only seems appropriate to the author that these nonprofit
organizations should receive a small administrative fee to help
offset costs incurred. Several states, including Washington,
Montana, and Oregon currently allow for such reimbursement.

Additionally, by permitting nonprofit organizations to retain a
10 percent administrative fee, the author believes that these
organizations will go to even greater lengths to promote and
sell these game species fundraising tags and potentially raise
more money for DFG and its important wildlife habitat
conservation programs.

According to the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance, DFG needs
greater direction to prioritize expenditures for conservation,
and not administrative costs, from the Big Game Management
Account. Data provided by this group concludes that in 2010-11,
DFG used nearly 30% of the funds expended from the Big Game
Management Account on administration and enforcement. For
2012-13, DFG is proposing to use upwards of 52% on
administrative costs and enforcement.

The California Waterfowl Association notes that, historically,
the stamp and tag monies were originally intended and used for
projects only. Hunting license monies were used for
administration and enforcement purposes. It is concerned that
3

over time, the department's administrative costs have absorbed
more of the tag and stamp money and that the enforcement costs,
which at one time were a smaller percentage of these funds, has
also grown. It views the bill as a way to get more of these
stamp and tag monies spent on projects that benefit the species
included in the Big Game Management Account while still
providing DFG with some flexibility in how the funds are spent.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received to the amended version of the bill.

COMMENTS

1. The Committee should know that Legislative Counsel drafted
the amendment that allows nonprofits to recoup their costs in a
manner slightly different from that proposed by the sponsors and
author. The current version of the bill would allow the
nonprofit to recover the lesser of the nonprofit's actual costs
or 10 percent of the amount for which the tag is sold.

2. Staff is recommending two amendments and a clarifying change.
The first amendment occurs in Sec. 715.1 where the nonprofits
that are selling big game tags would be those that are actually
designated to do so by the department.

A clarifying change in that same section is that the
administrative costs that will be recouped are those of the
designated non-profit and not those attributable to DFG.

The second amendment is in Section 3953 where the proposed (b)
would require separate accounting for the revenues generated by
each species in the Big Game Management Account. While DFG
should continue internally to track these revenues on a
species-specific basis, this proposed language runs counter to
the purpose of SB 1058 in consolidating these revenues into a
single account. For that reason, staff is recommending deletion
of (b).

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT 1
In 715.1(a) add "designated" after "a" and in 715 (b) after
"lesser of the" add "designated nonprofit's"

AMENDMENT 2
In Sec. 3953, delete (b).

SUPPORT
California Waterfowl Association
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
National Rifle Association (previous version of bill)
California Rifle and Pistol Association (previous version of
bill)

OPPOSITION
Public Interest Coalition (letter addressed previous version of
bill)
Ohlone Humane Society (previous version of bill)
PawPAC (previous version of bill)