Brief(1)
S.B. 285 would impose additional penalties for convictions of statutes (K.S.A. 32-1002, K.S.A. 32-1003, or K.S.A. 32-1013) that involve the illegal taking of big game and for commercialization of big game (K.S.A. 32-1005). The bill would require upon first conviction of one of these statutes, the forfeiture of the person's hunting privileges for one year from the date of conviction and revocation of the person's hunting license. If the person has a lifetime hunting license, then the person's license would be suspended for one year from the date of conviction. Upon a second conviction, the bill would require forfeiture of a person's hunting privileges for three years from the date of conviction. If the person has a lifetime hunting license, then the person's license would be suspended for three years from the date of conviction. Upon a third or subsequent conviction, the bill would require forfeiture of a person's hunting privileges for five years from the date of conviction. If the person has a lifetime hunting license, then the person's license would be suspended for five years from the date of conviction.
If the person convicted has a combination hunting and fishing license or a combination lifetime license, then only the hunting portion would be revoked according to the other provisions of the bill. Finally, the bill would provide that nothing in the bill would prevent a convicting court from suspending a person's hunting privileges or ordering the forfeiture or suspension of a person's license, permit, stamp, or other issue of the Department of Wildlife and Parks for a period longer than that provided by the bill, if that suspension or forfeiture is otherwise provided by law.
Background
At the hearing on the bill, the only conferee was a spokesperson from the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. The conferee stated that the Department has received increasing public comments and complaints regarding instances of big game poaching, and the consequent negative impacts on landowners and their property as well as on the natural resource. The conferee stated that public comment has expressed frustration with the disinclination of certain courts to impose available fines and punishments.
The fiscal note on the bill states that there would be no fiscal impact on state revenues or expenditures. The note states that some long-term economic benefits may be realized because public wildlife resources would be protected to a greater degree, according to the Department of Wildlife and Parks.
1. *Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/bill_search.html.