OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALYSIS
Legislative Office Building, Room 5200
Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 240-0200
http: //www. cga. ct. gov/ofa
April 14, 2009
CORRECTION
To Fiscal Note on
SB-994, File No. 355
AN ACT CONCERNING LEGHOLD TRAPS.
The fiscal note indicated there would not be a fiscal impact under the bill's provisions. This is incorrect.
Instead, there would be a revenue loss to the General Fund of about $15,464 related to the loss of licenses through the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) due to a ban on leghold and conibear-style animal traps. Although trapping licenses cover all types of trapping licenses (not just leghold or conibear trapping) it is estimated that these style of commonly used traps represent about 90% of the trapping covered by this license type. The revenue loss is estimated in the table below:
License type |
License Fee ($) |
# of Licenses Issued FY 08 |
Revenue Collected in FY 08 ($): |
Raw fur dealer license: nonresident |
42 |
2 |
84 |
Raw fur dealer license: resident |
30 |
3 |
90 |
Trapping license: nonresident |
200 |
3 |
600 |
Trapping license: resident |
24 |
440 |
10,560 |
Trapping license: resident < 16 years old |
2 |
104 |
208 |
Trapping license: state land |
60 |
94 |
5,640 |
Total |
-- |
-- |
17,182 |
90% of licenses not sought in FY 10/FY 11 |
$15,464 |
There would also be costs of about $482,000 in FY 10 and FY 11 for additional Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) staff and related travel and equipment costs, as seen in the table below, since the bill prohibits the use of leghold and conibear-style animal traps. In the absence of these traps, it is anticipated that the beaver population would triple1. This would cause increased damage to dams, dikes, and other water-control structures, roads, and other infrastructure managed by DEP. In addition, it is anticipated that beaver-related damage complaints and illegal trapping would also increase three-fold.
Item |
Item Cost |
Number of Items |
Total Item Cost FY 10 & FY 11 |
Wildlife Technician: Inspections & reviews of beaver damage |
53,610 |
3 |
160,830 |
Travel (vehicle rental & fuel): Beaver damage Wildlife Tech |
11,600 |
3 |
34,800 |
Flood Control Technician/Civil Engineer: Maintenance of water control structures & roads on DEP managed lands |
53,610 |
3 |
160,830 |
Travel (vehicle rental & fuel): Water control Wildlife Tech |
11,600 |
3 |
34,800 |
Environmental Conservation (EnCon) Officer: Illegal trapping |
76,000 |
1 |
76,000 |
Travel & equipment: EnCon officer |
15,000 |
1 |
15,000 |
Total |
-- |
-- |
482,260 |
Lastly, the bill could result in increased costs to municipalities, since the bill removes the use of leghold and conibear-style animal traps. DEP currently provides municipalities with a list of volunteer, recreational trappers throughout the state, but it is anticipated that fewer, if any, volunteer trappers would be willing to assist municipalities with beaver removal in the absence of leghold and conibear-style traps. To the extent volunteer trappers would no longer provide free assistance to municipalities, municipalities would bear the full cost of beaver removal (by hiring professional trapping companies) at a cost of about $400 per beaver. It is estimated that 230 beavers would need to be removed by municipalities statewide, at a potential municipal cost of about $92,000 statewide.
1 Office of Legislative Research 2001-R-0127, Massachusetts' Ban on Leghold traps; Potential Costs of Losing Hunting and Trapping as Wildlife Management Methods, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Animal Use Issues Committee; Massachusetts Report to Joint Committee on Natural Resources on Beaver by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.