BILL ANALYSIS AB 815 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 24, 2007 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE Lois Wolk, Chair AB 815 (Berryhill) - As Amended: April 11, 2007 SUBJECT : Hunting or fishing; local regulation SUMMARY : Prohibits a city of county from adopting an ordinance or regulation within its jurisdiction that affects the taking of fish or game except under narrow specified circumstances relating to public health and safety. Specifically, this bill : 1)States legislative findings and declarations regarding a 1927 California Supreme Court decision holding that local governments are prohibited from regulating or interfering with the taking of fish and game, and the Legislature's delegation of regulatory powers to the Fish and Game Commission over hunting and fishing. States legislative findings that hunting and fishing are statistically among the safest of outdoor recreational activities, and are compatible with other recreational uses on many public lands and waters. 2)States legislative intent to affirm the exclusive legal authority granted to the Fish and Game Commission and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) with regard to the taking of fish and game, and to ensure continued statewide control by the commission and department over all fish and game matters. States further legislative intent to protect public safety, and to minimize the need for litigation by serving as a guide for cities and counties. 3)Declares that the state has fully occupied the field of fish and game. 4)Prohibits a city or county from adopting an ordinance or regulation that affects the taking of fish and game unless: a) The ordinance or regulation is necessary to protect public health and safety and that is its principal purpose; and b) The ordinance or regulation only has an incidental effect upon the field of fish and game reserved to the commission or department by the Constitution. AB 815 Page 2 5)Authorizes a city or county when complying with the above, to take into consideration specified factors. 6)Provides that no ordinance or regulation adopted by a city or county that would affect taking of fish and game shall apply to any areas where the taking of fish and game may take place without endangering public health and safety. 7)Prohibits any city or county ordinance or regulations from affecting the taking of fish and game in any of the following areas: a) On any lands or waters owned and managed by state or federal government; b) On any private lands outside of a city's geographical limits that are not included in the "safety zone." (The "safety zone" is defined in Section 3004 as the area within 150 yards of an occupied dwelling.); c) On lands or waters outside a city's geographical limits where the commission or department determines that the taking of fish and game is necessary for wildlife management, public safety or other purposes; d) Any private lands inside a city's geographical limits that are not included in the "safety zone," where limited-range weapons may be used safely to take fish or game. 8)Requires the commission, department, or any other governmental entity authorized to impact taking of fish and game on navigable waters held in public trust to consider the fishing and hunting rights of the public guaranteed under the Constitution. 9)Provides that unless otherwise expressly authorized by law, the commission is the only entity authorized to adopt or promulgate regulations regarding the taking of fish and game on any lands or waters within the state. Further provides that this subsection shall not inhibit a private landowner or designee from restricting the taking of fish and game on property owned in fee. 10)Authorizes a city or county to consult with DFG. 11)States that nothing in this section shall be construed to invalidate an ordinance or regulation in its entirety, and AB 815 Page 3 only those specific geographic areas that do not meet the requirements of this section shall be affected. EXISTING LAW : 1)Authorizes the Legislature, in the California Constitution, to delegate to the Fish and Game Commission powers relating to the protection and propagation of fish and game. The Legislature, by statute, has delegated to the Fish and Game Commission the power to regulate the taking or possession of fish and game, in accordance with state fish and game laws. The California Constitution also guarantees the right to fish on the public lands and waters of the state and prohibits laws to impede access to these lands for the purpose of fishing. 2)Gives local governments authority, under the California Constitution, to make and enforce within their limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general law. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown costs to DFG and the Fish and Game Commission to review and analyze local ordinances if consultation is sought by the local jurisdiction. RELATED LEGISLATION : AB 2146 (Canciamilla) of last session was substantially similar to this bill, except that AB 2146 only applied to local ordinances adopted on or after January 1, 2007, whereas this bill would apply to existing as well as future ordinances. This bill also adds some provisions not included in AB 2146, such as the provision which provides that no ordinance or regulation of a city or county that would affect the taking of fish and game shall extend to any areas where hunting and fishing may take place without endangering public health or safety, and the provisions limiting local ordinances from affecting the taking of fish and game on private lands. AB 2146 passed the Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee based on an agreement that the sponsors would work with the League of California Cities to address their concerns with the bill. AB 2146 was subsequently held in the Senate when interested parties agreed to negotiate over the Fall interim. COMMENTS : 1)Author's Statement : According to the author, the purpose of this bill is to ensure comprehensive, biologically-based AB 815 Page 4 control over the management of fish and game by keeping local governments from regulating fish and game matters unless legitimate public safety reasons require otherwise. Other purposes include preventing duplicative or contradictory game regulations, encouraging greater communication between local governments and DFG, and maintaining hunting and fishing as incentives for private landowners to enter into conservation easements or other habitat protection agreements. The author cites examples of local ordinances adopted by cities and counties which restrict the otherwise legal taking of fish and game in areas where the author and sponsors do not believe these activities are creating a public safety threat. Examples cited by the author include the City of Hercules which has an ordinance which prohibits discharging a firearm within the city limits, and an ordinance adopted by the County of Placer which prohibits possession or discharge of a firearm over unincorporated parts of the county. With regard to the City of Hercules ordinance, the city indicates that when increased development occurred in the city near the shoreline, the city interpreted the ordinance to extend to prohibit hunting offshore in San Pablo Bay. After discussions with the Fish and Game Commission the city was convinced that they did not have jurisdiction to enforce the ordinance against waterfowl hunters offshore in the bay who were not posing a threat to residents on shore given the range of the weapons they were using, and are no longer enforcing the ordinance offshore in the bay. The author asserts that this bill will provide needed clarity for local governments by clarifying state preemption over fish and game, while allowing local governments to pass ordinances if they are both necessary to protect public health and safety and only incidentally impact fishing and hunting. 2)Legal background : Local ordinances are invalid if they attempt to impose requirements in a field that is preempted by state law. Local ordinances may be preempted where the Legislature adopts a general scheme for regulation that indicates an intent, expressly or impliedly, by the state to occupy a particular field to the exclusion of local laws. (See In re Lane, 58 Cal.2d. 99, Pipoly v. Benson (1942) 20 Cal.2d. 366, and Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893.) The California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, gives local governments broad police powers. AB 815 Page 5 The California Constitution, as amended in 1902, also provides that the Legislature may provide for the division of the state into fish and game districts and may enact such laws for the protection of fish and game as it deems appropriate. The California Supreme Court in In re Makings (1927) 200 Cal. 174 held that the purpose of this amendment was to take from local authorities the right to regulate fish and game and to invest such power exclusively in the state. In a 1986 opinion, the Attorney General analyzed both of these constitutional provisions and opined that a county may by ordinance adopt laws regulating certain methods of hunting within its jurisdiction where such action is necessary to protect public health and safety, and where the local ordinance only incidentally affects the field of hunting. The particular ordinance in question banned steel-jawed leghold traps. Attorney General opinions are persuasive authority but not binding on courts. The Attorney General opinion relied in part on the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in People v. Mueller (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 949. The court in that case found a local ordinance regulating fishing to be valid, and held that if the primary purpose of the ordinance is the protection of public health and safety, and the ordinance affects hunting and fishing only incidentally, the ordinance is a valid exercise of the local police power. The author's background information also references a recent unpublished opinion, Cal. Bowman Hunters State Archery Assn. v. City of Burbank, in which the court upheld the city's ordinance prohibiting the use of bows and arrows in city limits. The author correctly notes that this ruling, which the California Supreme Court declined to review, can not be cited as legal authority in other cases since it was unpublished. 3)Are Subsections (g)(2) and (4) overly broad or necessary?: Subsection (d) of this bill clarifies that local ordinances which affect fish and game are preempted unless the local ordinance is both: (a) necessary to protect public health and safety and has protection of public health and safety as its primary purpose, and (b) only incidentally affects the field of fish and game. Subsections (g)(2) and (4) go beyond these parameters to further prohibit local ordinances that affect AB 815 Page 6 the taking of fish and game on private lands outside the "safety zone" of 150 feet from occupied dwellings, whether or not the local agency believes the ordinance is necessary for public health and safety and only incidentally affects fish and game. For example, an ordinance that prohibited the discharge of a firearm on private lands within city limits would be preempted under subsection (g)(4) to the extent it applied outside the "safety zone" of 150 yards from occupied buildings where limited range weapons could be used to safely take fish and game. Whether such weapons could be safely used to take fish and game within city limits may be subject to debate depending on the circumstances, and a local jurisdiction may argue that it is within their police powers to prohibit the use of such weapons within city limits for public health and safety reasons. An ordinance that prohibited discharging of a firearm for public safety reasons on private lands outside city limits and more than 150 feet from an occupied dwelling would be preempted under subsection (g)(2) of the bill. In many communities there are areas where unincorporated private lands abut developed areas or areas where the public has access for hiking or bicycle riding, and the discharge of long range firearms could pose a public safety hazard. Proponents of this bill point out that such concerns may be addressed by existing Fish and Game codes or regulations that prohibit, for instance, negligent discharge of a firearm or prohibit the discharge of firearms over roads or other public ways. 4)Support: Supporters of this bill assert that it will help ensure that California follows a science-based, comprehensive approach to its fish and game laws, facilitate better regulatory compliance with fish and game rules, provide statutory guidance for local governments that have no legal background or biological expertise on such issues, and encourage greater communication between local governments and DFG. Supporters also argue that state control over fish and game will ensure statewide management rather than parochial local control. Some supporters also note that while affirming the state's control over fish and game matters, this bill also protects the rights of private landowners to determine whether to allow fishing and hunting on their own properties. This bill will also encourage private habitat conservation, since the opportunity to hunt and fish is a prime motivation for landowners to protect wildlife habitat, particularly wetlands AB 815 Page 7 conservation. 5)Opposition: Opponents of this bill believe cities and counties should retain the right to determine activities within their jurisdiction according to their best judgment and local preferences. The Animal Protection Institute asserts that this bill would shift the balance of power between local governments and the state Fish and Game Commission. In particular they are concerned that this bill would prohibit a local government from adopting an ordinance to prohibit the setting of traps in local communities where they might seriously injure or kill family pets, and pose a hazard to young children. They cite examples of local ordinances on trapping they fear could be preempted by this bill. They argue that the bill limits local government's exercise of police power beyond mere codification of existing case law, and will have a chilling effect on local government's exercise of police powers for the protection of public safety and property. API further asserts that this bill, by declaring the state has fully occupied the field, could serve to invalidate local ordinances previously upheld by the courts. The Urban Wildlands Group of Los Angeles is concerned that the bill would limit the ability of cities and counties to protect their citizens, pets and wildlife, and asserts that the courts have been able to appropriately resolve previous conflicts. 6)Concerns: The League of California Cities, while not opposing this bill, has raised several concerns, including that some of the language of the bill is fairly broad and could limit the authority of cities to adopt ordinances to protect the public health and safety. While the League recognizes the state's role over fish and game, they point out that cities need to retain the authority to protect the public based on local needs. They also believe that the need for this legislation has not been demonstrated. Specific concerns the League raises include a concern that the language in subsection (g), which prohibits a local ordinance from affecting the taking of fish and game in several areas, may expose local jurisdictions to liability, because there is no guarantee that a local ordinance to protect public health and safety will absolutely not have an unintended impact on hunting and fishing in these areas. Some of the concerns raised by the League may have been addressed by the April 11th amendments. AB 815 Page 8 The Regional Council of Rural Counties similarly is concerned that this bill include language clarifying the authority delegated to cities and counties to regulate for the protection of both public health and safety. It is unclear whether the April 11th amendments address these concerns. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Butte Sink Waterfowl Association, Inc. California Animal Association California Council of Land Trusts California Deer Association California Houndsmen for Conservation California Outdoor Heritage Alliance California Rice Commission California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. California State Pipe Trades Council Support - continued California Trout California Waterfowl Association Federation of Fly Fishers, Northern California/Nevada Council Golden Gate Fishermen's Association Lower Sherman Island Duck Hunters Association Mountain Meadows Conservancy Mule Deer Foundation National Rifle Association of America Nevada County Sportsmen, Inc. Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California Recreational Fishing Alliance Safari Club International Suisun Resource Conservation District The California Sportsman's Lobby, Inc. U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Quail Unlimited, Orange County and Santa Clarita Chapters Z-Tech Sales Inc. Over 30 individuals Opposition Animal Place AB 815 Page 9 Animal Protection Institute Animal Switchboard California Animal Association California Federation for Animal Legislation Last Chance for Animals League of Humane Voters - California Chapter People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) The Humane Society of the United States Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. Several individuals Concerns League of California Cities Regional Council of Rural Counties Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916) 319-2096