HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1597

BYRepresentatives Bumgarner, Sutherland, S. Wilson, Rayburn, Amondson, K. Wilson, Smith, Meyers, Fuhrman, Bristow, Haugen, Jacobsen, Ferguson and Sanders

Providing for wildlife propagation reserves.

House Committe on Natural Resources

Majority Report:  Do pass.  (12)

      Signed by Representatives Sutherland, Chair; Beck, Bumgarner, Butterfield, Dorn, Fuhrman, Hargrove, Haugen, Meyers, Sayan, C. Smith and S. Wilson.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (3)

      Signed by Representatives K. Wilson, Vice Chair; Belcher and Spanel.

House Staff:Bill Koss (786-7129)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES FEBRUARY 4, 1988

BACKGROUND:

In several states, private ownership of wildlife is permitted. In these states, the owner may buy, sell, raise, and propagate wildlife.  Washington law, like most states, restricts ownership. Here, the wildlife belongs to the state except in limited situations.

The Department of Wildlife authorizes the operation of game farms.  Game farmers may raise bullfrogs, muskrat, beavers, and game birds such as pheasants, quail, partridge, and waterfowl.  A licensed individual may operate a game farm and a shooting preserve for the hunting of game birds.  The operator compensates the Department for any wild birds displaced or taken on the shooting preserve.  Violations of the appropriate rules constitute a misdemeanor.  As such, the perpetrator may be punished by a fine of not less than $25 and/or imprisonment for up to 90 days.

The Department of Agriculture currently authorizes and regulates the raising of fish by the private sector.  In 1985, the Department of Wildlife licensed 96 facilities to grow game fish and the Department of Fisheries authorized 26 facilities to raise food fish.

Many people who enjoy wildlife feel a need to take active steps to increase both the amount and quality of wildlife habitat in order to increase wildlife abundance.  In many areas of Washington and other states, the private sector can and does provide the best wildlife habitat.  For example, in Washington, private parties own 49 percent of the commercial forest lands, usually the lowest elevation lands offering the best habitat.  The ownership of wetland and range habitat is largely private.

SUMMARY:

Private individuals may establish wildlife propagation reserves under the authority of the Department of Agriculture.  A wildlife propagation reserve means any property on which big game is raised for hunting, purchase, propagation, or sale.  Wildlife propagation preserves include public or private zoos.  However, wildlife propagation reserves exclude state-operated game farms.

Wildlife propagation reserves include establishing herds of big game from (1) resident native animals on the ranch, and (2) animals introduced to the ranch, including exotic (non-native) species.

Permitted activities include managing the game as necessary, including breeding, feeding, and harvesting the animals.  The landowner may enter into propagation and release agreements with the Wildlife Department.  The landowner may charge a fee to allow access to the property.  On wildlife propagation reserves, the hunting seasons, and bag limits will be established by the licensed operator.  However, hunting on preserves smaller than 160 acres may occur only under limited circumstances and then only by permission of the Director.

Regulations governing the propagation reserves will be developed by the Department of Agriculture with advice from the Wildlife Propagation Reserve Advisory Board.  The Board consists of three members representing sporting clubs, zoos, and agricultural associations.  The Department of Wildlife shall advise the Department of Agriculture regarding appropriate limits on propagation and management activities.

The Department will issue licenses to individuals operating wildlife propagation reserves after public hearings.  A license may be revoked, however so long as the licensee is in compliance with the requirements of the law and adopted rules, the license will be renewed upon payment of the annual fee which shall be the greater of $10 or $1 for each enclosed acre in the propagation reserve.

Agents of the Departments of Wildlife and Agriculture may inspect the records of the ranches and render assistance when requested. Wildlife Department staff may not enter wildlife propagation reserves without permission unless otherwise authorized by law.

A series of violations are identified.  Each violation carries with it a penalty of six months in jail and/or a $6,000 fine, with each day of a continuing violation a separate violation.  Violations of the law include (1) entrapping wildlife with a bait or feed; (2) placing a wild animal on propagation reserves without written permission of the Director; (3) selling or purchasing a big game animal without issuing or receiving a receipt; (4) failing to maintain adequate records; (5) permitting wildlife, other than big game animals maintained on the wildlife propagation reserves, to be hunted without complying with the provisions of Title 77; and (6) impeding an owner of wildlife propagation reserve animals in the recovery of any animals that have escaped the reserve.

In the event the fence surrounding the game propagation reserve encloses native wildlife, the Department of Wildlife may conduct a consensus of the free-ranging animals.  The operator will make a cash deposit with the Department equivalent to the market value of the enclosed free-ranging animals.  If the operator releases to the wild an equal number of animals to compensate for those enclosed, the deposit shall be returned.  Any verified escapes will be credited to the operator and the deposit reduced accordingly.

Wildlife enclosed in military reservations and penal institutions shall be managed to permit hunting, relocation or sale, as the Department of Wildlife deems appropriate.

Wildlife on wildlife propagation reserves shall not be considered state wildlife.  The authority of the Director of Wildlife and the Wildlife Commission is specifically limited to exclude game animals reared on wildlife propagation reserves.

The Director of Wildlife's authority to allow the taking of wildlife damaging property is altered.  Taking wildlife is a last resort after considering the capture and sale or removal of the offending animals.  Any disposal may include sale at fair market value.

Fiscal Note:      Requested January 26, 1988.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Representative Bumgarner; Craig Voegle, Boise Cascade; Terry Bair, citizen.  Bob Ace, King County Sportsmen's Council, neither opposed nor supported, but suggested additional work on the subject.  Rich Poelker, Department of Wildlife, neither expressly supported nor opposed the bill, but indicated the Department had some concerns with the bill.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Terry Karro, Wildlife Commission; John Stone, Washington State Sportsmen's Council; Gary Geddes, Northwest Trek Wildlife Park; and Paul Telford, citizen.

House Committee - Testimony For:    The Department of Wildlife needs to manage for quality wildlife, cooperate with landowners in developing incentives to manage for wildlife, encourage private propagation of wildlife, and establish game propagation on tribal lands.  Current Department management does not support development of high quality, trophy-sized animals.  The proposal allows landowners an opportunity to earn additional income and enhance hunting. Private management of wildlife is commonly done world-wide and in some states.  Washington allows management of small game and upland birds now.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      When the Legislature passed ESHB 758 in 1987, it required the Wildlife Commission to report back in November, 1988 with recommendations on innovative management and new revenue sources. This bill shortcuts the process laid out in the law.  It encourages the raising of wildlife in private reserves with the risk of spreading disease to native wildlife populations and the cattle industry.  Wildlife propagation is a specialized science and propagators should be certified, these businesses should be bonded to ensure proper care of the animals if the businesses fail and the businesses require more regulation than the bill provides.  This would include authority for the Department of Wildlife to enforce rules, not the Department of Agriculture.