BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1249|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1249
Author: Wolk (D)
Amended: 8/24/12
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMM : 5-0, 4/10/12
AYES: Pavley, Cannella, Kehoe, Padilla, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: La Malfa, Evans, Fuller, Simitian
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/24/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Dutton
SENATE FLOOR : 27-7, 5/30/12
AYES: Alquist, Berryhill, Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De
Le�n, DeSaulnier, Evans, Hancock, Harman, Hernandez,
Kehoe, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod,
Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio, Simitian, Steinberg,
Vargas, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NOES: Anderson, Blakeslee, Dutton, Gaines, La Malfa,
Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Emmerson, Fuller, Huff,
Runner, Strickland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Department of Fish and Game: lands:
expenditures
SOURCE : Author
CONTINUED
SB 1249
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill allows the Department of Fish and Game
(DFG) to enter into contracts with nonprofit conservation
groups for the management and operation of DFG-managed
lands starting January 1, 2015, require that a fee be
collected for the use of DFG-managed lands, and requires
that the county's expenditures of Fish and Game penalty
revenues be expended for fish and wildlife purposes.
Assembly Amendments make clarifying changes and require the
fee in the Senate version to start on January 1, 2015.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1.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.
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.
SB 1249
Page
3
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 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, except for ecological reserves where uses shall be
considered on an individual basis. 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
SB 1249
Page
4
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.
Background
DFG manages 711 properties throughout California,
encompassing more than one million acres, including 408
wildlife areas, ecological reserves, hatcheries, and public
access lands. Entrance fees are only charged at 19 of
these areas which result in approximately $2.5M in use
revenue annually. DFG is significantly underfunded for the
management of its lands with some areas receiving very
minimal management attention. Except for the 19 areas which
currently charge an entrance fee, management costs are
largely supported by hunting and licensing fees, despite
the fact that the lands are also used by non-consumptive
users (e.g. birdwatchers, hikers, campers). Revenues from
entrance fees are collected and deposited into the Native
Species Conservation Enhancement Account and used to
supplement the costs of wildlife management programs.
According to DFG, 100 percent of the entrance fees
collected are returned to the property at which they were
collected for management of that property. Entrance fees
which are collected under the authority granted to DFG
under �1764 and 1765 of the Fish and Game Code cannot be
collected until that property has a management plan.
SB 1249
Page
5
Counties currently receive a portion of all fines and
penalties generated from violations of the Fish and Game
Code. A county is required to deposit these funds into a
county fish and wildlife propagation fund and may only
expend these monies for the protection, conservation,
propagation, and preservation of fish and wildlife as
specified in Section 13103 of the Fish and Game Code.
According to the author, in one county, it was found that
the revenues were being used to supplement salaries in its
sheriff's office, which is not consistent with Section
13103.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
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.
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.
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.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/29/12)
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
California Waterfowl Association
SB 1249
Page
6
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/29/12)
Paw Pac
Public Interest Coalition
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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.
SB 1249
Page
7
This bill also clarifies that with regard to ecological
reserves, where hunting is generally not allowed, uses
shall be considered on an individual basis.
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 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
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : 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.
CTW:n 8/29/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****