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