LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
March 11, 1997
TO: Honorable Edmund Kuempel, Chair IN RE: House Bill No. 1452
Committee on State Recreational Resources By: Gutierrez
House
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on HB1452 ( Relating
to poaching; providing a penalty.) this office has detemined
the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by HB1452-As Introduced
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a
net impact of $0 to General Revenue Related Funds through the
biennium ending August 31, 1999.
The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal
basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions
of the bill.
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would allow seizure and forfeiture of hunting and fishing
equipment or a vehicle, vessel firearm or other device used
by a person hunting on private or public property, or fishing
in public water from private property without landowner consent.
The bill would increase the minimum penalty for hunting and
fishing without landowner consent from $25 to $300. In addition,
the bill provides for license revocation and allows a court
to prohibit a person from buying a license for a period of time.
Methodolgy
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department estimates that the sale
of confiscated equipment could result in a gain of $15,000 per
year. The agency estimates that an increase in the average
fine from $150 to $400 would result in a revenue gain of $85,000
per year, based on the agency's allocation of 85 percent of
the fine and 400 citations per year. The local courts retain
15 percent of the fine. The Parks and Wildlife Department also
estimates that the agency will experience a loss of $13,000
as a result of license revocation provisions under the bill.
In addition, the agency indicates that revoking a license requires
an administrative hearing process prior to the surrendering
of a license. At a cost of $2500 per hearing, the agency estimates
an annual cost of $50,000.
The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions
of the bill during each of the first five years following passage
is estimated as follows:
Five Year Impact:
Fiscal Year Probable Probable Revenue Probable Revenue
Savings/(Cost) Gain/(Loss) from Gain/(Loss) from
from Game, Fish Game, Fish and Game, Fish and
and Water Safety Water Safety Water Safety
Account Account Account
0009 0009 0009
1998 ($50,000) $100,000 ($13,000)
1998 (50,000) 100,000 (13,000)
2000 (50,000) 100,000 (13,000)
2001 (50,000) 100,000 (13,000)
2002 (50,000) 100,000 (13,000)
Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
The probable fiscal implication to General Revenue related funds
during each of the first five years is estimated as follows:
Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
General Revenue Related Funds
Funds
1998 $0
1999 0
2000 0
2001 0
2002 0
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government
is anticipated. According to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
estimates, local courts will retain 15 percent of the revenue
generated from higher fines, therefore, the estimated impact
to local courts is a revenue gain of $15,000 per year.
Source: Agencies: 802 Parks and Wildlife Department
LBB Staff: JK ,BB ,DM