BILL ANALYSIS AB 1254 Page 1 Date of Hearing: January 12, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE Jared William Huffman, Chair AB 1254 (Berryhill) - As Amended: January 4, 2009 SUBJECT : Fish and Game Commission; Hunting SUMMARY : Makes several changes to the Fish and Game Code related to expanding hunting opportunities on private and public lands, authorizes hunting derbies, and modifies requirements for annual Fish and Game Commission (FGC) meetings. Specifically, this bill : 1)Repeals an existing statute making it unlawful to hunt on private property that is posted with "PRIVATE PROPERTY NO HUNTING" signs in specified sizes and locations. 2)Modifies existing law, which currently makes it unlawful to enter private property posted with no trespassing signs for the purpose of hunting, including lands temporarily inundated by flood waters, to apply only if the waters are nonnavigable. 3)Authorizes the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to issue a permit to a person or nonprofit organization authorizing the offering of a prize or inducement for the taking of a game species. Permits would be authorized if DFG determines there would be no detriment to the resource. Prohibits a prize or inducement for the taking of a game bird or mammal from being based on the total number of birds or mammals taken. Authorizes DFG to waive the permit fee if the purpose of the contest, tournament or derby is to introduce young people to or educate them about hunting. 4)Modifies existing law, which currently requires the FGC to encourage multiple recreational uses of state wildlife management areas, to require that the FGC particularly encourage hunting and fishing uses. 5)Modifies the Wildlife Conservation Board's (WCB) authority to authorize acquisition of easements on private land for the purpose of providing fishing and hunting opportunities for the public. 6)Authorizes the FGC to hold no fewer than 8 regular meetings AB 1254 Page 2 per year if it has adequate funding for travel, including for DFG travel, with no more than 3 regular meetings to be held in Sacramento. EXISTING LAW : 1)Makes it unlawful to enter any lands, including lands temporarily inundated by waters, where signs forbidding trespass are displayed, for the purpose of discharging any firearm or taking or destroying any mammal or bird without written permission from the landowner. 2)Protects, under Article 10, Section 4 of the California Constitution, the right of public access to navigable waters of the State. 3)Makes it unlawful to take any mammal or bird or to discharge any firearm on lands posted with "PRIVATE PROPERTY NO HUNTING" signs meeting certain specifications. 4)Prohibits, subject to certain exceptions, the offering of any prize or other inducement as a reward for the taking of any game birds, mammals, fish, reptiles or amphibians in an individual contest, tournament or derby. Authorizes DFG to issue a permit to any person authorizing the offering of a prize or other inducement as a reward for the taking of a game fish if DFG determines there would be no detriment to the resource. Permits are subject to regulations adopted by the FGC. Authorizes DFG to waive the permit fee if the contest, tournament or derby is for persons under 16 years of age and the primary purpose is to introduce young anglers to or to educate them about fishing. Exempts contests, tournaments or derbies for the taking of game birds and mammals from these prohibitions and requirements if the total value of all the prizes or other inducements is less than $500. 5)States that multiple recreational use of wildlife management areas is desirable and shall be encouraged by the FGC. 6)Authorizes WCB to authorize acquisition of rights in real property as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of wildlife conservation, including by means of easements, gifts, purchases, leases and transfers, subject to restrictions on the use of eminent domain. Specifically authorizes WCB to authorize the acquisition of lands or rights in land by DFG as AB 1254 Page 3 may be necessary for the purpose of furnishing public access to lands or waters open to the public for fishing, hunting and shooting. 7)Requires the FGC to hold no fewer than 10 regular meetings per calendar year, no more than 2 of which may be held in Sacramento. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. COMMENTS : Purpose : The California Outdoor Heritage Alliance is sponsoring this bill to: 1) allow the FGC to adjust its meeting schedule to address funding shortfalls, 2) authorize DFG to issue hunting derby permits to nonprofit organizations for fundraising purposes, and 3) clarify Fish and Game Code Section 2016 as it relates to nonnavigable waters. With regard to the hunting derby provision, COHA states this bill merely applies the current permit process for fishing derbies to hunting derbies, providing an additional fundraising tool to nonprofits for wildlife conservation. With regard to the amendment to Section 2016, they note a former Attorney General opinion concluded that section was unconstitutional as applied to navigable waters. Issues : The provisions in this bill raise several legal and policy issues as follows: 1)Hunting derbies . The provision authorizing the offering of a prize, award or other inducement for the taking of game birds or mammals was contained in an omnibus fish and game code committee bill proposed last year. However, that provision was removed from the bill on the Senate floor in response to opposition from animal rights groups. Proponents of this bill assert this provision provides parity with existing law which authorizes prizes for the taking of game fish. They note that such prizes can be a fundraising tool for nonprofit hunting advocacy groups to raise funds for conservation efforts, though the bill does not require that the prize money be put to conservation purposes. The offering of an inducement would be subject to a permit issued by DFG, which would be authorized to issue the permit only if it determined there would be no detriment to the species. The taking would also be required to comply with all existing laws for take of game species, including, for example, hunting license and tag AB 1254 Page 4 requirements, and regulations pertaining to seasons and bag limits. The opposition, which consists primarily of animal rights organizations, asserts this provision encourages excessive and illegal take of game animals by providing prize money for the killing of wildlife. They note that while fishing derbies may be catch and release, with hunting there is no release. The opposition also notes that contests offering total prizes of less than $500 for the taking of game species are already exempt under the existing law. Opponents assert that the offering of an award for the taking of birds or mammals encourages disrespect and excessive killing of wildlife, particularly those species for which there is currently no bag limit or seasons, and that hunting contests can also pose public safety risks. The Humane Society also asserts in opposition that instead of promoting hunting, competitive hunting contests serve to degrade hunting in the eyes of the public. It should be noted that in the past DFG has indicated disfavor for provisions that would put a price on the killing of wildlife, due in part to concern that the offering of such awards encourages illegal take. In addition, due to the current lack of game wardens to monitor and enforce hunting laws in the field, hunting contests that potentially encourage take in violation of the law by some unscrupulous hunters could add further burdens to an already overburdened law enforcement work force. The policy question before the committee is whether, in light of these considerations, the offering of prizes, rewards or other inducements to encourage the taking of wildlife should be authorized, as are currently authorized for fishing. 2)Trespass Requirements : This bill repeals Section 2017 which prohibits hunting on lands posted with "PRIVATE PROPERTY NO HUNTING" signs of specified size and wording. An argument could be made that this section is unnecessary, since Fish and Game Code Section 2016 also prohibits trespass for the purpose of hunting on lands posted with no trespassing signs without prior written permission from the owner. However, this bill would also narrow the application of Section 2016, which currently includes lands temporarily inundated by flood waters, to apply only if the waters are nonnavigable. The proponents assert a constitutional right to access all AB 1254 Page 5 navigable waters, even waters temporarily inundating private property, for the purpose of hunting. A 1985 California Attorney General opinion opined that this section of the law was unconstitutional as applied to navigable waters. 68 Ops. Atty.Gen. 268. Attorney General opinions are persuasive but not binding on courts. Article 10, Section 4 of the California Constitution protects public access to "navigable waters" for public purposes, including for navigation, commerce and fishing. Courts have held that hunting is a privilege incidental to the public right of navigation. Forestier v. Johnson (1912) 164 Cal. 24. The definition of "navigable waters" and the related public trust doctrine have been the subject of numerous court decisions. The public trust doctrine has been extended to inland water ways, including lakes, streams and tributaries that affect navigable waters. The public trust and right of access to navigable waters for public trust purposes applies whether or not the waters are over private lands. People v. Sweetser (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 278. With National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d. 419 and subsequent cases, the public trust doctrine has also been expanded beyond its traditional common law emphasis on commerce, navigation and fisheries, to encompass changing public needs, including concern for the environment, expanding recreational uses, and aesthetic preservation. The courts have also held that states can regulate public access to navigable waters, and that some public trust uses can be limited by the state in order to preserve and promote other public trust uses. Personal Watercraft Coalition v. Board of Supervisors (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 129. The definition of "navigable waters" has also been an evolving concept. Waters have been held to be navigable if they are capable of being navigated by oar or small craft. Whether waters are navigable is primarily a question of fact. A waterway does not have to be navigable year round to be considered navigable water, and navigability may be found even if the water overlies the land only on a seasonal basis. For example, waters only navigable for 9 months of the year have been found to meet the definition of "navigable." However, courts have also held that though a waterway need not be floatable year-round for it to be navigable, it must be so for more than a few days in the rainy season and for more than infrequent or brief periods of high or flood waters. Hitchings v. Del Rio Woods Recreation & Park District (1976) AB 1254 Page 6 55 Cal.App. 3d 560. A 1975 California Attorney General Opinion opined seasonal floodwaters in the Butte Sink were navigable waters subject to public easement. The opinion noted that while a waterway need not be continuously navigable in fact throughout the year, the seasons of navigation must be regular and predictable to be depended on as navigable waters to support public access. As Section 2016 does not define navigable waters or specify for what period of time the lands must be temporarily inundated, and since navigability will still be a factual determination, adding the word "nonnavigable" to the statute may not necessarily provide greater clarity to hunters who wish to access private lands when temporarily flooded. In addition to the legal issues, the policy question for the committee is whether, in the case of private lands temporarily inundated with flood waters, the rights of private landowners to prohibit access for purposes of hunting should prevail over hunters' claims of right of access to those waters for hunting purposes. 3)WCB : This bill modifies a section of law that already authorizes WCB to approve the acquisition of lands or rights in land as may be necessary for the purpose of providing public access to lands or waters open to the public for fishing and hunting. The amendment proposed by this bill explicitly authorizes acquisition of easements on private land for the purpose of providing hunting and fishing opportunities for the public. However, the existing law already authorizes WCB to approve acquisition of easements for these purposes as well as for broader wildlife conservation purposes. Fish and Game Code Section 1348 authorizes WCB to authorize acquisition of rights in real property as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of wildlife conservation, expressly including easements, gifts, purchases, leases and transfers. It is therefore unclear why the change proposed in this bill is needed. It is also unclear why the phrase "for the purpose of providing fishing and hunting opportunities for the public" is being added, since the language in Section 1354 already states "for the purpose of furnishing public access to lands or waters open to the public for fishing, hunting and shooting." The amendments proposed by this bill are therefore at best redundant, but at worst could create ambiguity as to the meaning of the law. There is also a possibility that the wording could be interpreted to narrow WCB's authority to acquiring easements only for the purposes of public hunting and fishing, whereas the broader purpose of the wildlife AB 1254 Page 7 conservation law, as expressed in Fish and Game Code Section 1350, is to "effectuate a coordinated and balanced program resulting in the maximum restoration of wildlife in the state and in the maximum recreational advantages to the people of the state." For these reasons, should the committee decide to approve this bill, staff recommends that the amendments to this section be deleted. 4)Wildlife Management Areas : Current law recognizes the desirability of multiple uses of state wildlife management areas, and requires the FGC to encourage such use. This bill would require that the FGC particularly encourage the traditional uses of hunting and fishing. Proponents support this language because they hope it will lead to an increase in the number of places where Californians can go to hunt and fish. Hunters and fishers pay licensing fees which are used in part to support state wildlife management areas. The current law encourages multiple uses, which include hunting and fishing and other non-consumptive uses. While it is unclear whether this amendment has any real substantive effect, the policy question for the committee is whether this change should be approved as proposed to require the FGC to encourage traditional hunting and fishing uses over other non-consumptive uses of state wildlife management areas, such as bird watching, hiking, nature study, youth education, scientific research and habitat conservation. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California Outdoor Heritage Alliance (sponsor) California Sportsman's Lobby Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California Opposition Paw Pac Humane Society Action for Animals California Federation for Animal Legislation Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916) 319-2096 AB 1254 Page 8