Bill Description: House Bill 653 would require the Department of Fish and Game to provide notice and a potential opportunity to object before the “planned movement” of wild game, but it would allow the department to engage in the “responsive movement” of wild game with no advance notice or opportunity to object. 

Rating: 0

Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?

House Bill 653 would amend sections 36-106 and 36-202, Idaho Code, which deal with how and when the Department of Fish and Game may relocate wild game. 

The bill divides wild game relocation efforts into two categories it calls “planned movement” and “responsive movement”.

It defines “planned movement” as “the department's scheduled or otherwise discretionary capture, relocation, or transplantation of an animal that does not pose an imminent threat to public safety or a direct danger to human life or property. Planned movement may include but is not limited to actions taken for habitat modification or restoration; population management or augmentation; genetic diversity efforts; research or tracking purposes; mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts that do not require responsive movement; and reintroductions into areas where objectives are not being met.”

It defines “responsive movement” as “the department's immediate capture, relocation, or transplantation of an animal because it is necessary to protect public safety due to an imminent threat. Such threats may include but are not limited to situations in which an animal: enters a developed or populated area; becomes trapped or injured; or otherwise poses a direct and immediate danger to human life, public infrastructure, or private property.”

In the case of “planned movement,” the department would be required to provide at least 30 days’ notice to the boards of county commissioners of the counties in which the planned movement is proposed to take place and to affected federal and state land grazing permittees and owners or leaseholders of private land within a contiguous five (5) mile radius of the planned movement's proposed release site.

“Any affected person” would have the opportunity to “within ten (10) days of such notice, request the board of county commissioners, in writing, for a hearing.” It further says, “Within thirty (30) days of receiving such written request, the board shall conduct one (1) public hearing for each of the proposed actions within the notification. At the public hearing, the board shall accept oral public comment and shall vote to approve or reject the proposed planned movement prior to concluding the hearing. Such vote shall be final and binding on the director.”

However, “the director may proceed with responsive movement without prior notification,” but “within seventy-two (72) hours of completing a responsive movement, the director shall provide notice, including a brief description of the action taken, the species moved, and location of the release, to the board of county commissioners in the release county; the affected federal and state land grazing permittees and owners or leaseholders of private land within a contiguous five (5) mile radius of the release site; and the house resources and conservation committee and the senate resources and environment committee for their review during the next legislative session.”

The director will also have to “maintain a publicly accessible report of all responsive movement actions and update it within thirty (30) days of any action.”

To the extent these processes are followed and the “responsive movement” exception is not abused, the bill may provide some increased transparency regarding the department’s relocation of wild game. However, even providing notice and a potential opportunity for a hearing fall well short of fully respecting private property rights and meaningfully limiting the department’s efforts to engage in central planning.

(0)