|
|
|
|
|
|
State of
|
|
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
K. L. COOL director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of
|
|
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
K. L. COOL director |
BILL
NUMBER: House Bill No. 4861
TOPIC: Provides funds for abatement and reimbursement to
agricultural producers for wildlife damages
SPONSOR: Representative
Rich Brown
CO-SPONSORS: Representatives
Stephen F. Adamini and Matthew Gillard
COMMITTEE: Committee
on Conservation and Outdoor Recreation
Analysis Done:
POSITION
Opposed. This legislation would dramatically impact
existing Department programs in several ways.
At present, the State is not reimbursing producers for damage to
commodities. This Bill would establish a
very cumbersome program with two major segments. The first would provide reimbursement to
commodity producers for wildlife damage abatement measures and actual damage to
commodities by the identified wildlife species.
The second would require that producers receiving payments for either
abatement measures or actual loss provide access for public hunting of those
lands receiving the payments. The Bill
would have the Department develop complex bureaucratic guidelines for managing
a reimbursement program as well as an oversight to assure persons receiving
compensation provide public hunting access as the law requires.
The
Bill identifies costs for the program to be provided from a restricted Wildlife
Damage Fund. The Bill identifies a
portion of the bear hunting license fees as an identified source for the Fund. However, with the use of only bear hunting
license fees, this Fund will not have sufficient revenue to cover the oversight
costs of the program as well as the reimbursements to Agricultural Commodity
Owners (ACOs).
It is expected that the cost of administering this program could leave
very little remaining in the Fund to pro-rate to the ACOs.
The
Bill further specifies that once payment is made to an ACO, the land pertaining
to the claim will be open to hunting during the appropriate seasons. The complexity of oversight of this portion
of the Bill will require a tremendous commitment of time and financial
resources from the Department which is currently directed to other program
priorities.
If
an ACO refuses to allow hunting, the Bill provides that payments received are
to be returned, and the ACO must reimburse the Department for the costs it
incurred during the investigation. This
process will increase costs associated with monitoring the various land parcels
to make sure that they are open for hunting during the appropriate season. The Bill also requires the Department to
arrange an annual audit of the reimbursements for wildlife damage prevention
measures as well as payments made for wildlife damage.
Lastly,
the Bill would require the Department to prepare an annual report. Overall, this Bill will increase costs to the
Department by creating a new program which will draw from existing program
funding, requiring additional personnel oversight, and expands requirements to
the existing wildlife damage program administered by the Department. The cost of implementing, administering, and
maintaining this program could be large dependent on the number and size of
requests filed by ACOs.
The
realistic cost to administer a program of this complexity and magnitude would
require much more Game and Fish Protection funds, as well as other sources of
funding to operate somewhat effectively.
The actual increase cannot be calculated because it would be dependent
on the number of requests filed by ACOs.
PROBLEM/BACKGROUND
This
Bill appears to be initiated to meet two perceived needs. The first is the need to compensate
agricultural producers for damage, and the second is the need for access for
hunting (particularly those species identified in the Bill).
DESCRIPTION OF BILL
House
Bill No. 4861 amends 1994 PA 451, the Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Act, and provides funds for the abatement and reimbursement to
agricultural producers for wildlife damages from four, or possibly five,
specific wildlife species. According to
the Bill, 15 percent of the revenue from bear license sales is to be deposited
into the created Wildlife Damage Fund.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Pro
None.
Con
The
Bill would set precedent for reimbursing producers for damage to commodities
and requiring preventative measures to prevent damage. In
The
Bill would set precedent by requiring private landowners to allow access to
their private properties for hunting.
The Bill would also require the Department to recover payments from ACOs if hunting is not allowed. It is not clear that the State has the
authority to require a landowner to open their property to hunting in order to
receive consideration for damage. In
both cases, the Department’s authority to implement such direction is extremely
limited; any effort would be contested and costly to litigate.
The
Bill would have the Department create complex bureaucratic guidelines for
managing a reimbursement program as well as an oversight function to ensure
persons receiving compensation provide public hunting access as the law
requires. Such guidelines would be
complex and difficult to administer.
The
Bill would have negative consequences to wildlife programs since the identified
funding source would generate far less income than the cost of implementing,
administering, and maintaining this program.
It is expected that the cost of administering this program could leave
little remaining in the fund to prorate to ACOs. Additionally, the Bill places the burden of
compensation upon a very small segment of the general population. Funding for such an extensive program should
come from General Fund sources since the damages are a cost to society as a
whole.
The
Bill requires the Department to issue guidelines to establish standards for
tolerable levels of damage caused by deer to commodities. These standards would be required in setting
population goals for managing the deer herd.
The goals should be based on sound science, and input from all
FISCAL/ECONOMIC
IMPACT
Budgetary:
The Department may lose
federal funds because the payments to ACOs for damage
may be perceived to be for agricultural purposes and not Game and Fish
related. The Department could be found
in diversion and potentially lose $5.6 million in federal Pittman-Robertson
funds.
Revenue:
The revenue impact to the
Game and Fish Protection Fund would range from $17,000 to $24,800 based on the
bear license sales from the last four fiscal years (not including application
or service fees).
Comments:
The Bill provides costs for the program to be
provided from an identified restricted Wildlife Damage Fund. The Bill identifies a portion of the bear
hunting license fees as an identified source for the Fund. According to the Bill, 15 percent of the
revenue from bear license sales is to be deposited into the Wildlife Damage
Fund. However, with the use of only bear
hunting license fees, this Fund will not have sufficient revenue to cover the
oversight costs of the program as well as the reimbursement to ACOs.
The realistic cost to administer a program of this
complexity and magnitude would require additional funding from other sources
than the Game and Fish Protection Fund to effectively operate.
Budgetary:
The administrative burden would far exceed the revenue generated from
earmarked license sales. Additional
commodity damage programs can be expected, which may dramatically increase the
cost of this program.
Revenue:
Revenue loss from the Bill would be minimal.
Comments:
The Bill would set precedent for reimbursing producers for damage to
commodities and requiring preventative measures to prevent damage. Since there are many other wildlife species
which cause “damage” to an even more diverse group of agricultural and nonagricultural
commodities within the State, the costs of such a program could rapidly
escalate even though the identified funding source is insufficient to cover the
targeted species.
Comments:
Unknown.
OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS
This
Bill assigns responsibility for determining the value of damage to commodities
to the Department, currently the responsibility of the Michigan Department of
Agriculture or Michigan State University Extension staff. The ability to make this determination is difficult
and training and expertise necessary to do a competent job would have to be
required of the professional Wildlife staff.
Damage assessment to agricultural commodities would continue to be very
subjective in most cases.
ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Only
deer, bear, geese, turkey, and sandhill cranes are
covered under this legislation. These
species are very highly regarded by most citizens of this State, including
affected agricultural producers. There
are other losses from other species which are more significant.
There
are costs to many segments of society for the existing populations of wildlife
identified in this legislation. To
single out one segment for special consideration for the payment of damages
will raise the question as to why only agricultural commodities. Agricultural producers should not necessarily
be required to foot the bill for support to wildlife populations enjoyed by all
of the public, either. Damages by some
of the identified species to residential sites and domestic animal damages from
wildlife-vehicle crashes could be considered also. In 2001, there were 64,000+ car-deer crashes
in
While
public access for hunting is an admirable direction, this Bill would provide
minimal additional access to these particular wildlife species. Most of these lands are already used by some
hunters, though they may not be accessible to the general hunting community. In summary, this Bill would provide for the
special treatment of only one small segment of the
ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES IMPACT
This Bill defines a very long and detailed
description of procedures needed to implement this program. The Bill requires administrative rules be
established by the Department for the following processes:
a.
Establishing
guidelines for determining damage;
b.
Establishing
eligibility and funding requirements for reimbursing commodity producers for
wildlife damage that maximize the cost/effectiveness of the described program;
c.
Establishing
procedures for processing and paying reimbursement;
d.
Establishing
procedures for verifying costs and implementation of prevention measures;
e.
Establishing procedures
for identifying preventative measures;
f.
Establishing
procedures for processing and paying claims for compensation for claims of
damage to commodities;
g.
Establishing
standards for determining wildlife damage;
h.
Methods of
pro-ration of compensation for damage claims;
i.
Procedures for
inspections.
_______________________________
K. L. Cool
Director
_______________________________
Date
WLD
