Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Fee Authority topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates bill moving some wildlife license-setting to Wildlife Board; sponsors say legislature keeps final approval
Summary
Senators debated House Bill 54 over whether certain small-game and fishing license fees should be set first by the Wildlife Board and later included in the annual appropriation bill. Sponsors said the legislature retains final approval; some senators asked for statutory clarifications and raised concerns about fee increases.
The Utah State Senate on Jan. 26 took up House Bill 54, a measure to let the Wildlife Board set a limited list of license fees and include those recommended rates as a fee schedule attached to the annual appropriation bill.
Senator Blackham introduced the bill, saying it would move a small set of licensing fees from direct legislative enactment to the wildlife-board process that already handles most game and fishing fees. "This just seemed a logical thing to do," Blackham said, describing the board's public hearing process and regional advisory committees that review rates statewide.
Senator Steele pressed why wildlife fees were singled out and argued the legislature has historically provided an additional check on fee changes. "Why make the change?" Steele asked, noting the legislature has reviewed fee schedules in appropriation bills and voiced concern that the bill’s language could limit the legislature's ability to adjust rates.
Blackham responded that the Wildlife Board would make initial recommendations but that the rates would still appear in the appropriation bill and would not take effect without legislative approval. He told the chamber that, "we still have the final say on any of these rates" and that the appropriation process preserves the legislature’s authority to modify recommended fees.
Senator Peterson raised a specific example, saying he discovered a prior fishing-license figure of $18 in an appropriation bill and had not known the change from $10; he asked whether HB54 would change the process for that type of increase. The sponsor said he would check statutory cross-references and provide clarification to the body the following day. Senator Suazo asked whether the long title’s text (saying the Wildlife Board "shall set these fees and then will be approved by the legislature") matched the bill body; the sponsor said he would verify the precise statutory authority and report back.
After extended floor questions about statute numbering and the scope of board authority, the Senate called the roll on third reading placement. The clerk reported HB 54 had received 24 aye votes, 1 "may" vote and 4 absent and that the bill passed to the third-reading calendar. The sponsor reiterated that fee amounts would be attached to the appropriation bill and remain subject to legislative action.
The debate centered on process and legislative oversight rather than immediate fee increases; senators asked for clarifications on statutory cross-references and whether particular fee categories (for example, statewide fish stamps) remained constrained by prior statutory language. The sponsor committed to follow up with the precise code references for those concerns.
The bill now proceeds to the third-reading calendar and inclusion of any fee schedule in the appropriation bill, where the Senate said it retains authority to approve, amend or reject proposed rates.
