BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1249
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 8, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1249 (Wolk) - As Amended: July 3, 2012
Policy Committee: Water, Park and
Wildlife Vote: 10-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill alters the Department of Fish and Game's management of
land under its jurisdiction. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes DFG to enter into agreements with nonprofit
conservation groups or resources conservation districts for
the management and operation of DFG-managed lands.
2)Declares the following to be priority uses compatible with
department-managed lands: hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing,
wildlife photography, conservation education and fish and
wildlife research.
3)Requires, effective January 1, 2015, the purchase of a permit
to access all department managed lands for uses other than
hunting and fishing, unless DFG and the Fish and Game
Commission find continued free access to department-managed
land would best serve the interests of the area by not
charging an access fee.
4)Requires access fee revenue be deposited in the Native Species
Conservation and Enhancement Account within the Fish and Game
Preservation Fund.
5)To the extent DFG can identify the source of the revenue
collected, requires at least 35% of revenue go toward the
management of the DFG lands from which the fee was collected.
6)Requires all proposed expenditures from a county fish and
wildlife propagation fund be reviewed at a regular meeting of
the county board of supervisors or its designated fish and
SB 1249
Page 2
game commission prior to expenditure.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time costs of approximately $200,000 to DFG to modify its
Automated Licensing Data System (ALDS) to allow issuance of
site-specific nonconsumptive 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.
(The bill requires DFG to make access passes available onsite
only where the department determines doing so to be feasible
and cost effective. DFG indicates that most DFG land is
remote and infrequently visited, making onsite pass issuance
generally infeasible and not cost effective. DFG indicates,
therefore, it will make access passes available only through
ALDS and that it will not dedicate additional staff to
enforcement.)
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
state mandate. Because the bill requires the reviews to be
conducted during regularly scheduled meetings, costs should be
insignificant, reimbursable or not.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author intends this bill to improve DFG's
ability to manage land under its jurisdiction by providing
managerial flexibility, increased revenue and clear
priorities.
2)Background. DFG manages over one million acres of fish and
wildlife habitat located on 711 properties throughout the
state. These properties provide habitat for fish, wildlife,
SB 1249
Page 3
and plant species and comprise habitats from every major
ecosystem in the state. Accessing most DFG-managed lands is
free, though there is a small fee to enter any of DFG's
wildlife management areas and ecological reserves. Hunters
and anglers generally do not pay a fee to access DFG lands,
though they pay license, tag and stamp fees that contribute to
the management of department lands.
3)Support. This bill is supported by the California Waterfowl
Association and the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance, who
contend support for DFG's land management should be broadened
beyond hunter and anglers.
4) Opposition. This bill is opposed by Paw Pac and the Public
Interest Coalition, who contend outside management of DFG
lands will entail considerable costs in the form of DFG
oversight and protest the preferential treatment of hunters
and anglers, who, under this bill, will not pay access fees.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081