BILL ANALYSIS 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Darrell Steinberg, Chair |
| 2007-2008 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 2132 HEARING DATE: June 10, 2008
AUTHOR: Houston URGENCY: no
VERSION: June 2, 2008 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: no FISCAL: yes
SUBJECT: Wildlife: hunting
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Existing laws for hunting and fishing in California are
contained in the Fish and Game Code and regulations of the
Department of Fish and Game and the California Fish and Game
Commission.
An existing provision makes it unlawful to enter lands that are
posted with signs forbidding trespassing for the purpose of
hunting, without written permission from the owner, provided the
signs are posted in accordance with the law, which, among other
criteria, requires 3 signs posted per mile.
Existing law also provides for an archery season for deer under
regulations established by the commission.
Existing law prohibits a hunter from intentionally firing a
weapon across any public road in an unsafe manner.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would make changes in each of the existing provisions
noted above. Additionally, the bill proposes a new section in
the Fish and Game Code pertaining to lost hunting dogs.
As for lands posted with "no trespassing" signs, the bill
proposes to require signage to be posted at an interval of 1
sign per 1/3 mile and that such signs be at least 8 x 11
inches in size.
The bill would amend the bow hunting provisions for deer hunting
by directing the commission to develop regulations that permit
bow hunters to use one dog per hunter to aid in the recovery of
deer.
The bill proposes that the standard by which unsafe firing of a
weapon across any public road should be changed from negligence
to a "grossly" unsafe manner, and adds the qualification that
the discharge "could result in injury or death to a person using
the public road or established way. Adding "or established way"
is also proposed new language.
The bill proposes a new section that prohibits the unapproved
removal of a dog's tag, with the intention to prevent or hinder
the owner from locating the dog. A court may order a convicted
defendant of paying damages for the actual value of the dog and
any lost breeding revenues.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The sponsors contend that re-stating the signage requirement
will result in a more even distribution of signs and will help
prevent the occasional practice of some landowners of grouping
such signs so closely that hunters are not fully aware of the
affected property lines. The sponsors suggest that the
trespassing violations, which are relatively common, will be
reduced when the posting of property is undertaken more
uniformly and at better defined intervals.
The provision pertaining to the use of a dog for bow hunters to
help retrieve deer would parallel a similar provision that
applies to deer hunters who use firearms. A dog can help a
hunter more easily locate and recover downed game.
The new provision that would penalize the unauthorized removal
of a dog's collar is a response of the sponsors to situations in
other states in which members of the public have apparently
removed electronic collars from hunting dogs while they are in
the field. A handful of states have passed legislation
penalizing this conduct. The sponsors note that such activities
are uncommon in California, but that California has taken other
preventative steps with regard to undesirable hunting activities
such as the ban of computer-assisted remote hunting in 2005. The
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance states that a hunting dog
may cost thousands of dollars in training, maintenance, and
veterinary care.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The Committee received a letter of opposition that contained no
substantive information from the California Federation for
Animal Legislation.
COMMENTS
1. Staff suggests a technical amendment to clarify that the
provisions concerning the removal of a dog's collar be limited
to hunting dogs. The first suggested amendment would accomplish
this objective.
2. The Committee should be aware that the proposed amendment to
section 3004 would change the standard by which the intentional
discharge of a firearm across any public road or other
established way is considered. Existing law says such discharge
is unlawful if it was "unsafe." The amendment proposes that the
standard should be "in a grossly unsafe manner that could result
in injury or death to a person using the public road or
established way." Staff is flagging this issue for the attention
of the Committee and prepared an amendment in case the Committee
or the author desires to make a change in this language.
It clearly seems reasonable to add "or established way" to this
subdivision.
As to the changed negligence standard, the Committee should know
that this subdivision in its current form was added last year as
part of an Assembly omnibus bill that contained numerous changes
to the Fish and Game Code.
In a non-hunting context, the negligence standard seems to be
also one of "gross negligence." Section 246.3(a) of the Penal
Code provides that "Except as otherwise authorized by law, any
person who willfully discharges a firearm in a grossly negligent
manner which could result in injury or death to a person is
guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment
in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in
the state prison."
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
Page 2, line 4, add "hunting" before the "dog" and Page 2, line
8, add "hunting" before "dog" and Page 2, line 11 add "hunting"
before "dog."
AMENDMENT 2
Should the author or the committee determine to delete the
changed negligence standard and revert to existing law, that
could be accomplished by amending the proposed amendment to
Section 3004 by deleting the words "in a grossly" and by
deleting "that could result in injury or death to a person using
the public road or established way."
SUPPORT
California Houndsmen for Conservation
California Outdoor Heritage Association
Delta Waterfowl Foundation
Lower Sherman Island Duck Hunters Association
California Deer Association
Mule Deer Foundation
OPPOSITION
Animal Switchboard
California Federation for Animal Legislation