Establish criteria or give generic examples to determine what falls within a State's authority to give general direction to its State fish and wildlife agency and what would constitute loss of control. Clarify that it is not a diversion if a State establishes construction requirements or land-management standards applicable across the board. Who has the authority to speak for the Service on loss of control and diversion? Are there any requirements for consultation between the Regional and Washington Offices? (80)
Accessibility
| Privacy Statement | E-mail us
to ask a question, suggest a topic, or to get more information.
3 Comments
Ryan Oster
Jul 24, 2015This topic goes hand in hand with the development of a definition of the term "control". Agree, absent a better understanding of what the term "control" actually means, it becomes more difficult to provide guidance to States concerning (a) loss of control and (b) potential diversion situations. A more clear definition would help to minimize inconsistencies across the Service's different Regions.
Regional staff routinely provide their expert interpretations to States concerning new legislation that has the potential to create scenarios of potential diversions. Regional staff would be able to provide outstanding examples of past loss of control and potential diversion examples that may have occurred.
Scott Knight
Jul 24, 2015To clarify the issue we wanted to see addressed in 50 CFR 80, is the use of the term control as used in 80.10 and 80.11. We've observed that some are interpreting the language below to mean that State legislatures can not pass legislation directing the agency to spend license revenue on a specific item. We believe the Acts only restrict the State's constitutional appropriation authority to the extent it is "used only for the administration of the State fish and wildlife agency.." and "controlled only by the State fish and wildlife agency."
We don't believe that a State legislature directly appropriating license fees to a specific function is a violation of the assent provision of the Act. As long as they budget it to the State fish and wildlife agency and it is within the statutory authority of the agency (used only for the administration of the State fish and wildlife agency..).
80.10 Who is eligible to receive the benefits of the Acts?
States acting through their fish and wildlife agencies are eligible for benefits of the Acts only if they pass and maintain legislation that:
(a) Assents to the provisions of the Acts;
(b) Ensures the conservation of fish and wildlife; and
(c) Requires that revenue from hunting and fishing licenses be:
(1) Controlled only by the State fish and wildlife agency; and
(2) Used only for administration of the State fish and wildlife agency, which includes only the functions required to manage the agency and the fish- and wildlife-related resources for which the agency has authority under State law.
§ 80.11 How does a State become ineligible to receive the benefits of the Acts?
A State becomes ineligible to receive the benefits of the Acts if it:
(a) Fails materially to comply with any law, regulation, or term of a grant as it relates to acceptance and use of funds under the Acts;
(b) Does not have legislation required at § 80.10 or passes legislation contrary to the Acts; or
(c) Diverts hunting and fishing license revenue from:
(1) The control of the State fish and wildlife agency; or
(2) Purposes other than the agency's administration.
Ryan Oster
Jul 24, 2015Concur with S. Knight comment above.