BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2132
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2132 (Houston)
As Amended August 13, 2008
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |75-0 |(May 8, 2008) |SENATE: |37-0 |(August 20, |
| | | | | |2008) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: W., P. & W.
SUMMARY : Makes it unlawful to remove the collar of a hunting dog
with the intent of preventing or hindering the owner from locating
the dog, and modifies requirements for posting of "no trespassing"
signs to prevent entrance for purposes of hunting on private
lands.
The Senate amendments :
1)Delete the prohibition making it unlawful to remove the collar
of a dog without the owner's permission, and instead make it
unlawful to remove the collar of a hunting dog without written
permission of the owner. Defines "hunting dog" for these
purposes. Specifies that this section does not apply to a law
enforcement officer or animal control officer in the performance
of his/her duty, or to a person assisting an injured dog.
2)Restore the requirement that no trespassing signs be displayed
at intervals not less than three to the mile to prohibit entry
onto private lands for purposes of hunting, as opposed to one
per every one-third mile, and state that nothing in this section
shall be construed to authorize a landowner to place three signs
immediately adjacent to each other so as to comply with the
posting requirement.
3)Delete the requirement for the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to
consider adopting regulations permitting the use of one dog per
hunter during archery season to aid in recovery of deer.
4)Make the requirement for the Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
to assess a separate license fee for each property leased or
rented by a commercial hunting club for hunting purposes
permissive rather than mandatory.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 2132
Page 2
1)Makes it unlawful to enter lands posted with signs forbidding
trespassing for the purpose of hunting, without written
permission from the owner, if signs of any size forbidding
trespassing are displayed at intervals not less than three to
the mile along all exterior boundaries and all roads and trail
entrances.
2)Requires DFG to assess a separate license fee for each property
rented or leased by a commercial hunting club for hunting
purposes.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Made it unlawful to remove the collar of a dog without the
permission of the owner and with the intent of preventing or
hindering the owner from recovering the dog.
2)Required the posting of one sign at least 8 by 11 inches in
size at least every one-third mile to prevent trespass for
purposes of hunting, and required the FGC to consider adoption
of regulations authorizing the use of one dog per hunter during
archery season to aid in recovery of deer.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,
pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : The Senate amendments narrow the provision prohibiting
removal of a dog's collar to apply just to hunting dogs, delete
the provision relating to use of dogs during archery season, and
modify the provisions relating to posting of no trespassing signs.
The author and sponsors of this bill assert that there have been
several incidents where members of the public have removed
electronic collars of hunting dogs while they are in the field in
an effort to prevent the owners of the dogs from locating them.
In response, some states have adopted laws making such action a
crime and imposing penalties, including West Virginia, Virginia,
and North Carolina. They also assert that it can be difficult for
hunters to identify property that is posted, particularly where
the signs are posted too far apart. The purpose of this bill is
to better protect hunting dogs and reduce the number of
inadvertent trespass violations.
The Senate amendments also make a modification to a law enacted
last session, which authorizes DFG to permit commercial hunting
clubs that lease or rent more than one property for hunting
AB 2132
Page 3
purposes to submit one application listing each of the properties
for which they are seeking a license. That law currently requires
DFG to assess a separate license fee for each property to be
licensed. According to the author and sponsor, that requirement
has inadvertently led to a sudden and substantial increase in fees
for some hunt clubs that rent multiple properties. The Senate
amendment allows but does not require DFG to charge a separate
license fee for each property.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0007011