Relating to damage caused by wildlife; prescribing an effective date.
HB 3657 directs the Oregon State Department of Agriculture to create a limited-duration wildlife damage prevention and compensation pilot program. The program is intended to help farmers, ranchers, and other eligible agricultural land users address losses caused by wildlife by paying for eligible damage and certain preventive measures, such as repellents, barriers, and nonlethal deterrence activities. The bill also creates a dedicated Wildlife Damage Prevention and Compensation Fund in the State Treasury to finance the program and makes the fund continuously appropriated to the department for program administration.
The pilot is structured to operate in up to 10 selected areas east and west of the Cascade Mountains, chosen in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and local governments. Eligibility is limited to private or leased agricultural land not in a conservation reserve program and not charging hunting fees, and to persons who derive at least $1,000 annually from agricultural production on the land. The department must adopt rules for enrollment, claims, damage assessment, compensation calculations, prioritization of awards, and limits on reimbursement, including restrictions on claims already covered by insurance or federal programs. The program and fund sunset on January 2, 2030, and the bill requires reports to the Legislature by September 15, 2028, including an evaluation of whether a permanent program should be created.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new temporary statutory framework for wildlife damage mitigation and compensation, assign implementation authority to the Department of Agriculture, and create a new special fund with a $600,000 General Fund appropriation for the 2025-27 biennium. It also requires coordination with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and establishes reporting obligations that could inform future legislation, including possible expansion into a permanent or county-administered program.
The general sentiment reflected in the available vote history appears strongly supportive: the House committee advanced the bill unanimously, 9-0, with amendments and referral to Ways and Means by prior reference. The bill’s findings and structure suggest broad interest in helping agricultural producers manage wildlife conflicts while also encouraging coexistence with wildlife and using nonlethal prevention where possible.
The main points of contention likely center on program design and funding rather than the basic goal of addressing wildlife damage. Potential issues include whether compensation should be tied to hunting access or other preventive measures, how to define and verify “best preventive measures,” how to calculate losses and reimbursements, whether county-level administration would be preferable, and whether the pilot’s scope and funding are sufficient to justify a future permanent program.
HB 3657 creates a new temporary wildlife damage prevention and compensation pilot program within the State Department of Agriculture, backed by a dedicated fund and a $600,000 General Fund appropriation. It affects agricultural producers, landowners, and lessees on eligible private or leased land in selected pilot areas, while also requiring coordination with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and rulemaking on eligibility, claims, compensation, and prioritization. The bill sunsets the program and fund in 2030, with remaining money reverting to the General Fund.
The available legislative history shows clear support, with the House committee voting 9-0 to advance the bill with amendments. The bill’s framing emphasizes helping farmers and ranchers while promoting coexistence with wildlife, suggesting a generally favorable reception to a practical, limited pilot approach. No opposing testimony or recorded dissent is included in the provided materials.
Likely areas of debate include how much compensation should be available, which preventive actions should be required before payment, whether hunting access should be part of the definition of best preventive measures, and how to prevent duplicate payment when insurance or federal programs already cover losses. Another possible point of contention is whether the program should remain state-run or transition to county-level administration, which the required report specifically asks the agencies to evaluate. Funding level and whether the pilot is broad enough to produce useful statewide conclusions may also be debated.