SB 1249 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis

BILL ANALYSIS �

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

BILL NO: SB 1249 HEARING DATE: April 10, 2012

AUTHOR: Wolk URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 9, 2012 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Department of Fish and Game: lands: expenditures.

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Provisions in the Fish and Game Code establish the following:

1. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) may accept donations of
land or may otherwise acquire lands or non-marine waters for
several purposes including wildlife management areas, public
shooting grounds, ecological reserves, and others.

2. DFG is required to operate its lands on a nonprofit basis and
to accommodate multiple uses, including hunting and fishing.
Section 1528 mentions camping, picnicking, boating, or swimming
as possible other activities.

3. The California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) may charge fees
for any use privilege at these lands.

4. A separate provision allows DFG to issue annual or per-day
wildlife area passes. 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.

5. Many fines and forfeitures established in the Fish and Game
Code are evenly divided between the state and the county where
the fine was collected.

PROPOSED LAW
This bill would:

1. Allow DFG to enter into contracts with nonprofit conservation
groups for the management and operation of department-managed
1

lands. These are defined as public shooting grounds, state
marine recreational management areas, ecological reserves, and
wildlife management areas.

2. Establish that, like under federal law, hunting, fishing,
wildlife viewing, wildlife photography, conservation education,
and fish and wildlife research are categorized as "priority uses
compatible with department-managed lands." These uses would be
subject to purchase of a special use permit.

3. Allow other public uses as authorized by regulations adopted
by the department, which may involve purchase of a special use
permit.

4. Require permits for entry fees to be purchased through the
DFG public computer system used for hunting and fishing licenses
called the Automated License Data System, or other means, as
determined by DFG. Hunting, trapping, and fishing are exempt
from this provision.

5. Establish an infraction for not purchasing or possessing a
valid entry permit which carries potential fine of $50-$250.

6. Allow DFG to continue free access to department-managed lands
if FGC finds that not collecting the fee is in the best interest
of that particular department-managed land.

7. Condition expenditures by the county of fines and forfeitures
generated pursuant to the Fish and Game Code on public review at
a regular meeting of the county board of supervisors or the
designated county fish and game commission.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, this bill makes three important
changes:

1. It charges all users of DFG lands to pay for access to those
lands, and not just rely on the fees paid by hunters and
fishers.

2. It authorizes DFG to enter into agreements with nonprofits to
help manage DFG lands.

3. It establishes the priority uses on DFG lands as part of the
state's approach to multiple use of DFG lands and imposes a fee
for those priority uses while reserving to the DFG the authority
2

to preserve free access when and where appropriate.

The author points out that DFG manages 711 properties throughout
California, encompassing more than one million acres. Of those
properties, non-hunting and non-fishing recreational users are
assessed an entry fee at only seven of those properties, which
are wildlife management areas or ecological reserves. In
contrast, fees generated by hunters and fishers accounted for
$2.18 million for these lands in 2011.

The idea of charging fees to other recreational users (other
than hunting and fishing license holders) has been proposed in
the ongoing stakeholder review of DFG required by AB 2376
(Huffman) which will finalize its recommendations in the near
future.

By allowing DFG to contract with nonprofits to help manage its
lands, the author is hopeful that DFG's operational costs could
be reduced.

The priority uses identified in the bill are the same as those
identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System in the 1997
Refuge Improvement Act (P.L. 105-57).

The California Waterfowl Association is a co-sponsor of the bill
and it believes that the priority use designation will help keep
incompatible uses away from DFG lands. It notes that this change
would make the state and federal systems consistent which would
be helpful in the many situations in which lands are managed
jointly for recreational purposes. This group also supports the
change in the law relating to a county's approval of Fish and
Game code fee revenues.

The provision in the bill pertaining to a county's expenditure
of Fish and Game penalty revenues, is a response to a situation
in which a county used the Fish and Game money to supplement
salaries in its sheriff's office. The proposed language would
require that any use of these funds be done publicly.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The Public Interest Coalition objects to the priority use
designations because it considers hunting to be a recreational
use not practiced by 99% of the state. It also wants to ensure
that state game refuges are not included in the definition of
"department managed lands" (they are excluded) and it makes
other points, most of which were anticipated in the recent
amendments to the bill.
3

COMMENTS
1. Assuming the bill moves forward, the author may want to
consider how the entry fees that are collected are distributed
within DFG. The Department of Parks is considering a fee-sharing
arrangement with the nonprofits that step up to help it operate
state parks, with a certain percentage of the entry fees
remaining with the unit at which the fees were collected. The
author may want to consider a similar approach within DFG. The
purpose of such an arrangement is to create an incentive for the
fees to be collected and to assist with the operations and
management of the place from which the fees were collected.

The recent amendments resolve many of the questions that staff
had with the bill; however, a couple of technical issues remain.

2. The bill would be improved if 1745 (d) and (e) were flipped
so that it is clear that the fee provisions in (d) apply to all
of the approved multiple uses and priority use designations.

3. On page 4, line 6, the language should be clarified so that
it is clear that the multiple uses established in Sec. 1745 (c)
need not be reauthorized by the department. There is also a
technical amendment that should remove the word "other" on line
9 of that same section.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT 1
Adopt amendment in Comment 1

AMENDMENT 2
Adopt both amendments in Comment 2

AMENDMENT 3
On page 4, line 29, delete "commission" and add
"department"

SUPPORT
California Waterfowl Association
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance

OPPOSITION
Public Interest Coalition (unless amended)