DNR Letterhead

BILL ANALYSIS

BILL NUMBER: House Bill 5021 AS INTRODUCED

TOPIC: Wildlife Conservation– establish violator compact

SPONSOR: Representative Howard Walker

CO-SPONSORS: Representative’s Ken Bradstreet, Tom Casperson, Susan Tabor,

Gene DeRossett, David Palsrok and Scott Hummel

COMMITTEE: Conservation and Outdoor Recreation

Analysis Done: October 23, 2003

POSITION

The Department supports this legislation.

PROBLEM/BACKGROUND

Under current State wildlife law there is no assurance that a nonresident violator, upon returning to their home state, will answer to a citation issued to them. This requires enforcement personnel to manage nonresidents different from residents in order to assure their appearance by taking interim bond, lodging in jail or taking them immediately to court for appearance. This is at minimum an inconvenience for nonresident Michigan hunters. Michigan residents cited for wildlife violations in other states are treated similarly. In addition to the potential difficulty posed for a nonresident, it places a burden on the enforcement agency because of increased paperwork, mileage and time required to assure the appearance of nonresidents in court.

DESCRIPTION OF BILL

House Bill 5021 would amend 1994 PA 451 to allow the Governor of Michigan to enter into a “Wildlife Violator Compact” with other states. Under the terms of the compact, a nonresident violator in a participating state is provided the same impartial treatment provided a resident with regards to interim bond, lodging in jail and immediate court appearance. To address court appearance, under the terms of the compact, a nonresident violator failing to answer to a citation undergoes suspension in their home state and a hunting license suspension imposed by a home state is imposed by all member states.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Pro

Under the terms of the compact, a Michigan hunter cited in a participating state would be afforded the same consideration for personal recognizance as residents of that state. Besides being a convenience to the Michigan resident, it would allow Michigan officers to grant personal recognizance to nonresident hunters in Michigan, as appropriate, with some assurance they would answer to the citation in court. Not having to take bond, incarcerate or immediately take a nonresident to court should permit enforcement personnel to devote more time to patrol and other enforcement activities.

Nonresidents hunting in Michigan from participating states may be deterred from committing serious wildlife violations knowing that their license privileges will be suspended in their home state and all participating states. In addition, serious wildlife violators under license revocation in Michigan will no longer be able to hunt in a participating state with impunity until their revocation expires – they would be revoked in all participating states which may also help deter serious wildlife violations in Michigan.

Con

Most of the 18 states currently in the compact are western states which have a high proportion of nonresident hunters. Michigan’s hunting population is very predominantly resident hunters (98% of deer licenses sold) so this legislation will have a much smaller or negligible impact on Michigan’s wildlife resources. Of the total persons currently under a hunting license revocation as the result of a wildlife violation conviction, only 20 are nonresidents of Michigan.

FISCAL/ECONOMIC IMPACT

Are there revenue or budgetary implications in the bill to the --

(a) Department

Budgetary:

None.

Revenue:

None.

Comments:

The Department would expend funds to administer participation in the compact and establish electronic means of handling license revocation information from the participating states. Although exact figures are not available, we might expect any gains in enforcement officer efficiency to be offset by administrative costs.

(b) State

Budgetary:

None.

Revenue:

None.

Comments:

None.

(c) Local Government

Comments:

None.

OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS

None.

ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION

The states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming are current participants in the interstate wildlife violator compact. Florida and Oklahoma, in addition to Michigan, are currently considering state legislation to enable compact participation.

Public Law No. 293, H. R. 7353 passed June 6, 1934 and re-codified May 24, 1949 as Title 4 USC Section 12 allows the states to enter into compacts for cooperation in the prevention of crime. The section reads: “The consent of Congress is hereby given to any two or more States to enter into agreements or compacts for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance in the prevention of crime and in the enforcement of their respective criminal laws and policies, and to establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and compacts.”

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES IMPACT

None.

_______________________________

K. L. Cool

Director

_______________________________

Date

LE/