Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CalTroutDFGtransfer5 26 09
CalTroutDFGtransfer5 26 09
Subject: May Revise proposal affecting Dept of Fish and Game - $30 million
transfer of hunting and fishing license fees to the General Fund
Dear Senator
Ducheny and Assembly Member Evans:
On behalf of the thousands of sport anglers and hunters represented by California Trout
(CalTrout) and the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance, (COHA) we are writing to
express our opposition to the Governor’s may Revise proposal to transfer $30 million in
hunting and fishing license fee revenue from the Fish and Game Preservation Fund to
the General Fund for the reasons described below. However, we are also offering an
alternative for you to consider.
We question whether there is in fact that much of a “surplus“ that can be transferred
without causing major harm to core programs and operations of the Department of Fish
and Game (DFG). The $30 million is equivalent to nearly one-half of the total revenues
DFG collects in a single year from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses.
We understand that the transfer would also jeopardize an additional $42 million in
federal funds for which the $30 million provides state matching funds, resulting in a
potential net loss of $72 million to DFG programs and operations.
This is because hunting and fishing licenses revenues are annually used as matching
funds to garner federal funding via the Wildlife Restoration (Public Law 415 (Wildlife
Restoration Act of 1937)) and Sport Fish Restoration (Public Law 681 (Sport Fish
Restoration Act of 1950)) Programs. Since federal law effectively requires states to keep
their hunting and fishing licenses revenues from being diverted for non-fish and wildlife
purposes in order to receive these funds (which California has recognized via Sections
400-401 of the Fish and Game Code), your proposal puts these valuable federal monies
in jeopardy.
In March, the San Diego Union Tribune reported that DFG has been “dumping”
thousands of fingerling trout from its hatcheries due to inadequate funding for hatchery
operations. (“Budget Cuts Spur DFG to Dump Trout,” March 6, 2009). According to an
DFG spokesman quoted in the story, this was caused by a dramatic drop in revenues
from fishing license sales which are down considerably due to the current economic
crisis. Also, earlier this year the Governor issued lay-off notices to 90 DFG wardens,
nearly one-half of DFG’s beleaguered warden force, presumably because of funding
shortfalls.
As an alternative, if (a) it can be demonstrated that DFG losing the $30 million would not
cause major harm to its core programs and operations (esp. warden staffing), and (b) it
would not jeopardize receipt of $42 million in federal funds, you may still want to
consider the option of a “loan” to the General Fund. However, we would oppose such a
loan unless it is
tied to budget trailer bill language (TBL) freezing all existing hunting and fishing license
fee rates to 2009 levels, and specifically barring further increases until the loan is fully
repaid with interest.
Thank you for allowing our organizations the opportunity to express our shared views on
these important matters.
Sincerely,