HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1274

BYRepresentatives Haugen, S. Wilson, R. King, Brooks, Morris, Hargrove, Anderson, Rector and P. King 

Creating an office of natural resource enforcement and providing for its evaluation and design.

House Committe on Fisheries & Wildlife

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (8)

      Signed by Representatives R. King, Chair; S. Wilson, Ranking Republican Member; Basich, Bowman, Cole, Haugen, Smith and Spanel.

House Staff:Pamela Madson (786-7310)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES & WILDLIFE FEBRUARY 27, 1989

BACKGROUND:

All natural resource agencies have the statutory authority to exercise police power to enforce regulations and laws pertaining to the agency's individual programs.  Only the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife have staff trained and equipped to exercise broad law enforcement authority including arrest and citation authority for all criminal laws of the state.

As a result of this broad authority and greater enforcement presence both in the field and on the water, other natural resource agencies choose to utilize the existing enforcement capability by contributing either salary or equipment to enhance the capability of both agencies.  The Department of Natural Resources provides money to the Department of Fisheries for one enforcement officer for geoduck enforcement.  The Department of Social and Health Services' shellfish program contributes to a Fisheries' employee to help coordinate the patrolling of shellfish beds and monitor the illegal commercial harvest of shellfish in areas closed for public health reasons.  Because of Fisheries' enforcement presence on the water, it enforces boat registration requirements in marine waters.

The Department of Fisheries has an enforcement staff of 45 agents in the field.  These agents are concentrated in western Washington including marine waters.  The Department of Wildlife has 120 wildlife agents and 24 animal control agents covering the entire state.  The duties of a Wildlife agent may include more non- enforcement duties than a Fisheries agent.

Both Fisheries and Wildlife have some similar enforcement needs and obligations.  Both agencies issue and monitor hydraulic permits that are required for projects that involve changing habitat conditions in a stream.  Both agencies have enforcement needs that peak in certain areas of the state at certain times of the year.  Fisheries and Wildlife have formed a joint special investigation unit to deal with more sophisticated illegal activity like large scale poaching.

The Washington State Patrol is the only other state enforcement agency with broad police power and a trained and equipped staff of enforcement officers.  The States of Oregon and Alaska have incorporated their fisheries and wildlife enforcement officers into the state patrol as a separate division.  Fish and wildlife protection officers function in these states as state troopers, and may be required to patrol highways as well as perform fish and wildlife protection functions.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  By October 1, 1989, an evaluation team appointed jointly by the directors of the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife shall report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature.  The evaluation team shall recommend whether a single Fisheries and Wildlife enforcement unit should be placed in an existing agency or should be established as an independent agency.

The evaluation team shall assess what general functions should be assigned to the unit and evaluate specific duties such as enforcing compliance of hydraulic permits, coordinating assignment of agents, enforcing and administering both civil and criminal penalties, and coordinating adoption of consistent regulations by both agencies. The team shall also evaluate the need for additional enforcement personnel, and assess enforcement needs of other related resource agencies that might be served by a single enforcement unit.

The team shall include agency enforcement officers selected from recommendations by the officers' certified bargaining unit.  The team shall consult with related resource agencies, Indian tribes, prosecuting attorneys' association, and fisheries and wildlife interest groups.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The bill no longer creates the Office of Natural Resource Enforcement.  The evaluation team shall include agency law enforcement personnel recommended by their bargaining unit.  The team shall consult with related resource agencies, Indian tribes, prosecuting attorneys' association, and fisheries and wildlife interest groups.  Along with its other duties, the evaluation team shall assess the need for additional enforcement personnel, and the needs of related resource agencies that might be served by a single fishery and wildlife enforcement unit.

Fiscal Note:      Requested February 27, 1989.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Jim King, Washington State Sportsmen's Council; Day Wycoff, Department of Wildlife; Jim McKillip, Department of Fisheries, Scott Sigmon, Washington Federation of State Employees.

House Committee - Testified Against:      None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Sportsmen see a need to increase the enforcement presence in the field.  There is an increasing need for enforcement and for the level of sophistication of enforcement for fisheries and wildlife violations.  Poaching is recognized as a threat to the resource and is often found to be highly organized and involves other types of crime.  As use of the resources increases, the need to enforce regulations increases.  Reorganizing the structure of the enforcement unit may not result in more enforcement presence in the field without a financial commitment to enforcement.  Officers' duties are increasing but the number of agents are not.  (Concern:  Fisheries' enforcement agents benefit from being closely tied to fisheries management because regulations can change on a daily basis.)

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None Presented.