Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to move game-bird farm fees into statute, extend licenses to five years
Summary
The House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee gave House Bill 105 a do-pass recommendation after hearing department testimony that the measure will reduce administrative burden by setting fees in statute and extending game bird farm licenses from one year to five years.
House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee Chair Hinkle on voice vote advanced House Bill 105 after the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks told the committee the bill would simplify licensing and reduce paperwork for game-bird farm operators.
The bill, requested by the department and carried by Representative Albus, would remove unnecessary statutory language, place the game-bird farm license fee in statute rather than by rule, extend the license period from one year to five years and align the expiration date with other FWP licenses.
“This bill removes unnecessary language from statute, establishes the fee for a game bird license in statute rather than by rule, extends the license period from 1 year to 5 years, and changes the expiration date to be consistent with all other FWP licenses,” said Ron Howell, chief of law enforcement for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, in department testimony. Howell said the department and operators expect the change “will reduce the amount of time game bird farm operators and the department will have to spend processing renewal paperwork, and will help the department provide better customer service to the public.”
Warden Captain Phil Kilbreath, the department’s program administrator for game-bird farms, answered committee questions about why the fee was proposed to be moved into statute. Kilbreath said the department simply viewed this commercial license as appropriate for statute rather than rulemaking. Representative Perry asked whether placing the fee in statute would reduce the agency’s flexibility; Kilbreath and Howell did not dispute that a statutory fee would require legislative change to alter the amount.
There were no opponents in the hearing. The committee’s voice vote produced a unanimous do-pass recommendation; committee leadership announced the bill will advance to the full House for further consideration.
The committee record shows the department recommended a do pass and the committee approved the motion by voice vote with no named roll-call in committee minutes. No fiscal note or fee amount was introduced in committee testimony beyond the department’s statement that the fee would be set in statute.
