S.B. 51 (S-2): FIRST ANALYSIS - GAME-TAKING ORDERS

Senate Bill 51 (Substitute S-2 as passed by the Senate)

Sponsor: Senator Harry Gast

Committee: Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs

Date Completed: 3-4-97

RATIONALE

In the November 1996 general election, the State's voters approved Proposal G, which amended the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act to specify that the Natural Resources Commission has the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game in Michigan. This proposal in effect shifted all decision-making authority over hunting to the Commission and from the Director of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Commission must issue game-taking orders after a public meeting and an opportunity for public input. The Commission is not specifically required, however, to inform the Legislature of proposed orders, although this apparently had been a practice of the DNR prior to the approval of Proposal G. It has been suggested that the statute should be amended to require notice to legislators.

CONTENT

The bill would amend Part 401 (Wildlife Conservation) of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act to provide that, at least 30 days before issuing an order regulating the taking of game, the Natural Resources Commission would have to provide a copy of the order to each member of each standing committee of the Senate or House of Representatives that considers legislation pertaining to conservation, the environment, natural resources, recreation, tourism, or agriculture; the chairperson of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees; and the members of the Senate and House Appropriations subcommittees that consider the DNR budget.

MCL 324.40113a

ARGUMENTS

(Please note: The arguments contained in this analysis originate from sources outside the Senate Fiscal Agency. The Senate Fiscal Agency neither supports nor opposes legislation.)

Supporting Argument

Although the DNR used to give notice to the Legislature of proposed orders that regulated hunting, Proposal G failed to include a requirement that the Natural Resources Commission continue to do so. The bill simply would ensure that legislators received at least 30 days' notice from the Commission before it issued a game-taking order.

- Legislative Analyst: S. Margules

FISCAL IMPACT

The bill would restore a practice that was not included in Proposal G, and would have no fiscal impact on State government.

- Fiscal Analyst: G. CutlerA9798\S51A

This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.