Relating to a principal Act for predator damage control districts; prescribing an effective date.
SB 333 authorizes the creation of predator damage control districts within a county to fund county services aimed at preventing, reducing, and mitigating damage to property caused by predatory animals. The bill defines eligible land as agricultural land, forestland, or mixed farm and forest use land, and allows eligible landowners to petition for a district if they meet acreage and signature thresholds. The petition process includes county clerk review, public notice, a hearing, and a county governing body decision on whether to form the district.
The bill also establishes an advisory board for each district, made up of local landowners and livestock producers, to help oversee district operations, recommend annual charges, and manage annexation, withdrawal, and dissolution requests. It sets presumptive annual charges of $2 per acre for certain larger tax lots and a $50 flat fee for smaller lots, while allowing landowners to opt in or opt out under specified conditions. Counties may collect the charges through the tax roll or direct billing, and the county may withhold predator-damage services from owners who do not pay or who decline the charge.
SB 333 would create a new statutory framework for county-based predator damage control districts, operating notwithstanding the existing district formation statutes in ORS 198.705 to 198.955. It would add new procedures for petitioning, forming, governing, financing, annexing, withdrawing from, and dissolving these districts, and would authorize counties to levy and collect charges for predator damage control services. The bill also creates a limited enforcement mechanism and specifies that charges do not create a lien on the property, while allowing county and city participation in certain circumstances.
The bill appears to be framed as a practical response to livestock and property damage from predators, with an emphasis on local control and cost recovery for affected landowners. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the available materials. The bill text itself suggests a policy approach intended to be flexible and locally driven, with optional participation features for some landowners.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the inclusion of both nonlethal and lethal methods of predator control, the creation of a new charge on landowners, and the presumption that certain landowners must pay unless they opt out. Questions may also arise over who qualifies as an eligible petitioner, the acreage thresholds for forming a district, and whether counties should be able to withhold services from landowners who decline or fail to pay the charge. The bill’s allowance for county discretion in setting criteria and charges, and its possible application to incorporated cities with county consent, could also be debated by landowners, counties, and animal-welfare or wildlife-management interests.