NOTE:  As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.

 

The most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website.  The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

 

SPONSOR:

Griego

 

DATE TYPED:

3/17/03

 

HB

 

 

SHORT TITLE:

Game Depredation Program Amendments

 

SB

734/aSJC/aSFl#1

 

 

ANALYST:

Wilson

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

NFI

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

Responses Received From

Game & Fish Department (GFD)

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis of SFl #1 Amendment

 

The Senate Floor #1 amendment states that nothing in the bill shall limit the right of landowner or lessee to seek compensation against the GFD for damages or limit the amount of compensation.

 

     Synopsis of SJC Amendment

 

The Amendments adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee inserts the terms “of that species” after “an animal”.   The amended phrase in the bill now reads:

 

“and provided further, however, that a landowner who accepts more than one permit that allows the harvest of a bull or buck of the same species that is causing the property damage mane not take or kill an animal of that species pursuant to this section.”

 

     Synopsis of Original Bill

 

Senate Bill 734 prohibits a landowner from killing depredating animals if he receives more than one permit from GFD to harvest a male of the same species causing the depredation damage.

 

SB 734 also amends language to allow landowners to reject intervention methods if it would constitute a taking or permanently damage their private property.

 

In section 17-3-13.4, SB 734 deletes the word federal, making it no longer necessary to have a program for depredation damage on federal lands.  The State and Private lands depredation program is still required.

 

In section 17-3-14.2, this bill adds language requiring GFD to only issue female or immature licenses for depredation hunting purposes, unless there is evidence that a male game animal is doing the damage.

 

     Significant Issues

 

Occasionally, landowners will kill depredating game eating their pasture or crop.  This can be a conflict as a landowner may kill or want others to kill the game, like elk, and yet still receives landowner permits he can sell or give away.  It is extremely difficult to solve a landowners depredation problem by discouraging or taking the game on or near the property, when at other times the landowner gets hunting permits and provides hunting opportunities.  This creates inconsistency or conflict because, on one hand, the game should be removed, and on the other, it should be present for hunting opportunities. 

 

Landowners prefer to have male (buck or bull) permits because they have greater economic value. However, it is often females or the young of a species who are consuming range or crop forage.  To adequately address this, the GFD needs to remove these animals, especially those that reproduce and have more young.  Routinely, landowners want to negotiate for more male permits or authorization as a satisfactory intervention solution when they complain about depredation damage.

 

GFD supports SB 734 because it will lessen the likelihood of landowners negotiating for more bull or buck permits, and leave the females to reproduce and continue the depredation cycle.

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

GFD manages the big game fund and must prioritize the depredation control projects because of insufficient funds. Deleting the word “federal” in SB 734 will allow the GFD to focus it depredation interventions on private lands. Striking “federal” will insure that the GFD doesn’t exhaust the fund in the future on some a large federal track of land such as a national forest.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

 

Administrators and resource managers will be able to focus conservation and wildlife management efforts on managing game like elk at carrying capacity and forage level sustainability, making for better multiple use management decisions.

 

DW/sb/njw/ls