AB 1987 clarifies how the Department of Fish and Wildlife (the department) operates and funds department-managed lands by allowing nonprofit conservation groups and resource conservation districts (RCDs) to manage those lands under department contracts. The bill makes hunting, fishing, and related uses priority activities, permits only minimum facilities for other recreational uses, and requires management plans with public review for any changes.
The measure also authorizes the department to require entry permits for nonconsumptive users, sets procedural rules for notice and on-site sales, classifies failure to obtain a permit as an infraction, and directs fee revenue into the Native Species Conservation and Enhancement Account with at least 35 percent returned to the specific lands that generated the fees. Crucially, contracts with nonprofits or RCDs are exempted from specified Public Contract Code and Military and Veterans Code procurement provisions, reducing formal procurement oversight for these arrangements.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill lets the department enter into contracts with 501(c) nonprofit conservation groups and resource conservation districts to operate department-managed lands, exempts those contracts from certain state procurement rules, and authorizes the department to charge entry permits for nonconsumptive uses with signage, on-site sales where feasible, and mandatory possession of the permit while on the lands.
Who It Affects
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, nonprofit conservation organizations and resource conservation districts seeking management contracts, recreational nonconsumptive users (campers, hikers, boaters, swimmers), hunters (shooting-permit rules), and local land managers tracking fee revenue.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a legal pathway to outsource day-to-day management to nonprofits while enabling localized user-fee funding and partial retention of revenues by the site of collection. It also reduces procurement oversight for those contracts, shifting the balance of speed and flexibility against centralized transparency and competitive procurement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1987 defines "department-managed lands" to include public shooting grounds, state marine recreational management areas, ecological reserves, and wildlife management areas, and treats hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography, conservation education, and research as priority uses for those lands. For ecological reserves, the bill leaves permissible uses to site-specific consideration.
The measure instructs the Fish and Game Commission to encourage multiple recreational uses but limits the department to providing only the minimum facilities needed for non-hunting and non-fishing recreation.
The department may operate these lands on a nonprofit basis and enter into management and operation contracts with nonprofit conservation organizations recognized under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c) or with resource conservation districts organized under state law. Those contracts must follow an approved management plan and be consistent with the land’s acquisition purpose; any management-plan changes are subject to public review and comment.
Importantly, these contracts are expressly carved out from Part 2 of the Public Contract Code and from Article 6 of Chapter 6 of Division 4 of the Military and Veterans Code, which removes certain procurement procedures and competitive-bidding requirements that would otherwise apply.On funding and user fees, the bill formalizes the department’s authority to set and collect fees to defray multiple-use costs. It includes a mechanism—already set with a statutory commencement date of January 1, 2015—for requiring entry permits for nonconsumptive users if the department finds fee collection practical and cost effective.
When entry permits are required, the department must post notice at the site, allow on-site purchase to the extent feasible, sell permits through the Automated License Data System, and require users to carry the permit while on the land. The statute exempts anyone with a valid hunting, sport fishing, or trapping license from the entry-permit requirement and makes failure to obtain a required permit an infraction under Section 12002.2.1.Revenue from these fees is deposited into the Native Species Conservation and Enhancement Account within the Fish and Game Preservation Fund and becomes available to the department upon appropriation.
The department must, where it can identify the source of fee revenue, return no less than 35 percent of funds generated to the department-managed land where the revenue originated. The commission and department retain discretion to allow free access where that serves the area’s best interests.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes the department to contract with 501(c) nonprofit conservation groups and resource conservation districts to manage department-managed lands.
Those contracts are explicitly exempt from Part 2 of the Public Contract Code and Article 6 (commencing with Section 999) of the Military and Veterans Code, removing certain procurement and competitive-bid requirements.
The department may require an entry permit for nonconsumptive users (camping, picnicking, boating, swimming) if it finds collection practical and cost effective, with a statutory commencement reference of January 1, 2015.
When an entry permit is required, the department must post notice at the site, allow on-site purchase where feasible, sell permits via the Automated License Data System, and require users to carry the permit; failing to obtain a required permit is an infraction under Section 12002.2.1.
Fee revenue must go to the Native Species Conservation and Enhancement Account, and the department must allocate at least 35 percent of identified fee revenue back to the department-managed land that generated it.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions: department-managed lands and nonconsumptive uses
This subsection establishes the scope of "department-managed lands," covering a range of habitat and recreational designations including public shooting grounds and ecological reserves, and defines "nonconsumptive uses" as recreational activities other than hunting and fishing. The definition matters because it determines which locations and activities fall under the bill’s contracting, fee, and permit rules and clarifies that ecological reserves receive special, site-by-site treatment for allowable uses.
Nonprofit and RCD operating agreements and procurement carve-out
The department can run these lands on a nonprofit basis and enter into management contracts with 501(c) nonprofits or resource conservation districts. Contracts must follow an approved management plan and changes require public review. Practically, the provision speeds contracting flexibility by exempting these agreements from specified public procurement statutes, which reduces formal competitive-bid procedures and reporting that would otherwise apply—and therefore alters the compliance and oversight regime for outsourced land management.
Priority uses and limits on facilities for non-hunting recreation
The commission is directed to encourage multiple recreational use while the department is limited to providing only minimum facilities for non-hunting/fishing activities (camping, picnicking, boating, swimming). The bill also lists priority uses—hunting, fishing, viewing, photography, education, and research—so site managers must evaluate other proposed public uses against those priorities and the particular purpose for which the land was acquired.
Fee authority, entry-permit procedures, and enforcement
The commission may set fees to defray multiple-use costs and the department collects them. The statute contains a procedural template for entry permits: before requiring them, the department must post signage at the land; it must make on-site purchase feasible and sell permits through the Automated License Data System; and users must carry permits while on site. The law exempts holders of valid hunting, sport fishing, or trapping licenses from the entry-permit rule and deems noncompliance an infraction under Section 12002.2.1, which frames enforcement as a low-level offense enforceable by citation.
Revenue destination and site-level allocation
Fees collected under this section go into the Native Species Conservation and Enhancement Account within the Fish and Game Preservation Fund. The department must, to the extent it can trace fee sources, return no less than 35 percent of the funds to the department-managed land from which they originated. That creates a partial local retention model intended to fund land-specific management and operations.
Commission and department discretion to allow free access
Despite fee authority, the commission and department can choose to allow free access to a department-managed land when they determine that waiving fees is in the area’s best interest. This carve-out preserves local discretion and can be used to address equity, access, or policy goals that a flat fee structure would otherwise undermine.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- 501(c) nonprofit conservation organizations: Gain a statutory pathway to contract with the department to manage lands, creating revenue and program delivery opportunities.
- Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs): Receive explicit authority alongside nonprofits to operate and administer public-use programs on department-managed lands.
- Department-managed lands (site budgets and operations): Stand to receive at least 35 percent of identifiable fee revenue, providing a stable, locally directed funding stream for maintenance and stewardship.
- Native Species Conservation and Enhancement Account: Receives fee revenue deposits, increasing funds available (upon appropriation) for statewide conservation and enhancement projects tied to these lands.
Who Bears the Cost
- Nonconsumptive recreational users (hikers, campers, boaters): Face new or increased costs if the department requires entry permits and fees for access to certain department-managed lands.
- Department of Fish and Wildlife (administrative burden): Must implement permit sales (including Automated License Data System integration), handle onsite sales logistics, track and allocate revenue back to source lands, and manage contract oversight for nonprofits and RCDs.
- Local taxpayers and watchdogs (reduced procurement oversight): May bear indirect costs or risks from reduced transparency and competitive procurement safeguards when contracts are exempted from specified statutes.
- Law enforcement and courts: Will absorb enforcement workload for permit infractions under Section 12002.2.1, potentially increasing citations and administrative hearings.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the need for reliable, site-directed funding and flexible, locally driven management against the public-interest values of open access, procurement transparency, and uniform oversight—delivering administrative agility and revenue at the price of reduced statutory procurement safeguards and potential access trade-offs.
The bill leans on two policy levers—outsourcing management to nonprofits/RCDs and generating revenue through entry permits—to improve land stewardship and funding. Those levers interact awkwardly in practice.
Streamlined contracting can speed operations and create local partnerships, but the explicit exemptions from parts of the Public Contract Code and Military and Veterans Code reduce statutory controls designed to ensure competitive bidding, contract transparency, and some public-accountability processes. That change raises questions about how the department will maintain consistent oversight, prevent conflicts of interest, and ensure equitable contract awards.
On the revenue side, the statute requires a minimum 35 percent return to the originating land only "to the extent the department is able to identify the source of the fee revenue," which creates accounting and administrative complexity—especially for multi-site permit sales, bundled passes, or online purchases. The requirement to use the Automated License Data System for sales may help trace revenue, but the bill's direction that on-site sales be allowed "to the extent feasible" leaves open practical gaps (staffing, hardware, and connectivity).
The presence of a retroactive-looking statutory date (commencing January 1, 2015) is a drafting oddity: it suggests prior authority or a baseline that may conflict with current systems and requires clarification for implementation.
Finally, the balance between generating funds and preserving public access is unresolved. The department and commission retain discretion to waive fees when appropriate, but the permit-and-fee framework could reduce equitable access if implemented broadly.
Enforcement as an infraction limits penalties and likely reduces deterrence, but it also minimizes criminalization concerns; nevertheless, local enforcement strategies, signage adequacy, and the exemption for license holders will all shape real-world outcomes in ways the statute does not fully prescribe.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.