HOUSE BILL NO. 230 "An Act repealing the termination date for the intensive management hunting license surcharge." 10:24:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LINCOLN, BILL SPONSOR, introduced himself. He asked his staff to provide a description of the legislation. ELIZABETH FERGUSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LINCOLN, explained that the one-line bill would repeal the sunset date for the intensive management hunting license surcharge. She provided additional detail with a written statement: The surcharge was first implemented after legislation passed in 2016 authorizing the collection for it at a rate of $10 per resident hunting license and $30 for a nonresident hunting license. In its three years, the surcharge has grossed just about $3.1 million. House Bill 230 does not increase or change the surcharge amount per hunting license, and it does not change policy on intensive management, it just funds activities and will continue to allow the department to use much of that money for federal match. Ms. Ferguson referenced two pie charts in the packets' showing the total spending on intensive management activities for FY 18 and FY 19 prepared by the Division of Wildlife Conservation in the Department of Fish and Game (copy on file). She pointed out that the majority of the expenditures went toward research and management. She elaborated that scientists and researchers determined all of the factors at play - each case varied from one to another. Using the funds to assist the data driven approach had made the program successful. Currently most of the surcharge was used for a 1:3 match for Pittman-Robertson funds. The bill had a zero fiscal note; however, it showed that without the surcharge revenue, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) could stand to lose up to $4 million, which would make management research, surveying, and inventory more challenging. Section 1 of the bill [the bill's only section] read that the current sunset provision would be repealed with the passage of the bill. She relayed that the department was online for any questions. 10:26:53 AM Representative Josephson directed a question to DFG. He asked for confirmation that the federal match could not be used for predator control. EDDIE GRASSER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), answered in the negative. However, because of constraints federal land managers had on their land and other issues, DFG had elected to never use Pittman-Robertson dollars if possible, for actual predator management. Representative Josephson asked if it included not using the funding on state lands. Mr. Grasser agreed. Representative Josephson reported that he had been told during the current week by a DFG employee that Pittman- Robertson dollars could not be used for predator control. He stated his understanding of Mr. Grasser's testimony that DFG could use the funds [for predator control], but the department opted to not use the funds for that purpose. He asked why people kept telling him incorrectly that the department could not use Pittman-Robertson dollars on predator control. Mr. Grasser replied that he did not know. He clarified that there was nothing in the statutory language housing the Pittman-Robertson Act that barred the state from conducting predator management programs with the use of Pittman- Robertson dollars. HB 230 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.