DEPREDATION CLAIMS – Amends existing law to revise provisions regarding the payment of depredation claims.
Summary
House Bill 651 revises Idaho’s big game depredation fund statutes to change how depredation claims are financed and paid. The bill renames the existing big game secondary depredation account as the expendable big game depredation fund, continues the nonexpendable fund structure, and requires annual transfers into the fund from the fish and game account. It also preserves the use of investment earnings and sets out reporting requirements for the state controller regarding fund balances and interest earnings.
The bill tightens the payment rules for claims involving damage caused by big game, including claims for crop damage, livestock damage, and forage damage. It allows only partial immediate payment of approved claims in some cases, imposes annual caps on payments to a single person or related household/entity, requires a $750 deductible on most claims, and provides for proportional payment if available funds are insufficient. It also directs how unpaid approved claims are carried forward and paid, and limits forage-damage payments to no more than 50% of annual interest earnings from the fund.
Impact
The bill amends Section 36-115, Idaho Code, affecting the legal framework for the big game depredation fund and the payment of depredation claims under Sections 36-1108, 36-1109, and 36-1110. It changes fund administration, adds an annual transfer from the fish and game account, establishes a higher reserve threshold before excess balances are moved to the fish and game set-aside account, and imposes new payment limitations and deductibles on claimants. The practical effect is to regulate how much and how quickly ranchers, farmers, and other property owners can be reimbursed for wildlife-related losses, while preserving fund solvency and prioritizing distribution when claims exceed available resources.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill is a technical and fiscal management measure rather than a highly controversial policy change. Its purpose appears to be to improve predictability and control over depredation claim payments and fund balances, which may be viewed favorably by administrators and budget managers. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s referral to the Resources and Conservation Committee.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the payment caps, the $750 deductible, and the rule that approved claims may be paid only in part at first and then prorated if funds are short. Claimants affected by wildlife damage—especially farmers, ranchers, and landowners—may view these limits as reducing reimbursement or delaying payment. By contrast, state fiscal managers and wildlife administrators may support the changes as necessary to keep the depredation fund solvent and to spread limited resources across multiple claimants and claim types.