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