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
SPONSOR: |
Griego |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Game Depredation Program Amendments |
SB |
734/aSJC/aSFl#1 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
|
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
NFI |
|
|
|
|
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.