Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fish And Wildlife topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews Senate amendments adding fees and adjusting hunting penalties in HB 928
Summary
Legislative Council outlined Senate changes that reclassify some hunting violations to higher penalty points, authorize 365‑day licenses, and add a suite of previously adopted rule fees into statute while leaving conservation camp tuition to rulemaking.
Bradley Shman of the Office of Legislative Council briefed the committee on Senate amendments to House Bill 928, which make technical changes to fish and wildlife statutes, adjust the hunting violation point system, and move a set of previously adopted fees from rule into statute.
Shman said the amendments move some 10‑point violations to 20‑point violations within the point system used to suspend hunting privileges, authorize the department to issue licenses valid for 365 days instead of on a calendar‑year basis, and add a range of day‑use and special‑use fees — including wedding site rentals (statutory language reflected a $5,000 rental fee or $4,000 with a wedding planner) and special‑use permits — into statute where they had previously existed only in rule.
Members asked whether conservation camps (Buck Lake and K‑O) would retain the ability to adjust tuition; the committee was told the tuition fees were intentionally omitted from the statute so the department can continue to set them by rule. Committee members noted most of the fees in the package were last updated in 2013 and that the department characterized the fee updates as cost‑recovery rather than revenue generation.
Why it matters: The amendments lock a set of user fees into statute, changing the mechanism by which those fees are updated in the future (statutory change rather than rulemaking) and adjusting enforcement through the hunting point system. Leaving conservation camp tuition to rulemaking maintains departmental flexibility for those particular charges.
Next steps: Committee members had technical questions for department staff and indicated staff (including Ted) would follow up; the committee planned to take votes the following morning after jurisdictional questions were resolved.
