Funds OKd for Fish and Game Prosecutions : Government: Panel’s action earmarks money for D.A.’s office to resume prosecuting violations under pilot program.

Concerned that the abuse of environmental resources has escalated in the past year and a half, the Ventura County Fish and Game Commission on Wednesday approved giving $25,000 to the district attorney’s office to resume prosecuting fish and game violations.

The action, subject to final approval by county supervisors, would fund the first year of a two-year pilot program that calls for a veteran attorney to devote, virtually full time, to prosecuting fish and game cases.

The $25,000 will come from the county’s Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund, which draws money from fines imposed on violators. The full cost of the program will be about $45,000 annually, with the difference to come from private funding and the district attorney’s office, Deputy Dist. Atty. Donald D. Coleman said.

Three members of the commission, which advises supervisors on how to spend the wildlife funds, voted for the program. There was one abstention and one member was absent.

“If certain resources go away, what are we protecting?” commission Chairman Drew Madrigal said in explaining his vote. “We won’t have anything left to protect if we don’t make this investment now.”

The district attorney’s office stopped prosecuting most fish and game cases in August, 1991, citing a lack of funds. The year before the policy change, more than 1,000 misdemeanors and infractions were filed in Ventura County, according to Capt. Roger Reese of the state Fish and Game Department.

In 1992, only 151 cases were filed in the county, Reese said.

As a result, the five fish and game wardens assigned to the county have become discouraged, and sportsmen intent on abusing the environment have flooded the area because they know they will not be prosecuted, officials said.

Typical offenses include shooting deer out of season, hunting without a license, taking too many fish, and failing to throw back fish that are too small. Some of those offenses carry fines of $250 to $2,000 and as much as a year in jail.

In a lengthy debate before the vote was taken, some commissioners expressed concern that prosecutors were looking to wildlife funds to solve their fiscal problems. Commissioner James Donlon, who abstained during the vote, called the program a raid of the special fund and balked at giving two years’ approval, even though the commission is free to back out after one year if the program is not successful.

Coleman said his office believes environmental issues are important but only has enough money to prosecute crimes against people, not crimes against animals. A new state law allows counties to use wildlife funds to prosecute fish and game offenses, and Coleman said that when he found the statute, his office decided that represented a way to prosecute both types of crimes.

“It’s been frustrating for us as well to not be in the field of prosecuting fish and game violations,” Coleman told the commission. “ . . . Rather than sit around and talk about the problem, we tried to fix the problem.”

The wildlife fund now has about $150,000, Frank Anderson, the commission’s executive secretary, said. Before the district attorney’s office had backed away from fish and game prosecutions, the fund generally grew by as much as $20,000 a year, Anderson said.

United Anglers of Southern California, which sent two representatives to the meeting, said it will sponsor at least two fund-raisers a year to help pay for the program.

Coleman said the program’s two objectives will be to discourage abuse of the environment and increase revenues to the fund through aggressive prosecution of cases. Some commissioners said they would evaluate the program’s success based on how much money it generates.

Supervisor Maria VanderKolk of Thousand Oaks said she was pleased with the commission’s actions and will support the program when it comes before the board in about two weeks.

VanderKolk said she recommended that the various agencies get together in the first place to work out details for the program.

“It should be a revenue source for the county,” VanderKolk said. “It should bring in more money than it would cost.”

Supervisor Maggie Kildee of Camarillo said she is not familiar with all the details of the program, but her reaction at this point is favorable.