BILL ANALYSIS 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER | | Senator Fran Pavley, Chair | | 2009-2010 Regular Session | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILL NO: AB 1254 HEARING DATE: June 29, 2010 AUTHOR: T. Berryhill URGENCY: No VERSION: June 15, 2010 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes SUBJECT: Fish and Game Commission: hunting. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW Various provisions of the Fish and Game Code or the California Constitution state that: 1. It is unlawful to enter any lands, including lands temporarily inundated by waters, where signs forbidding trespassing are displayed, for the purpose of discharging any firearm or taking or destroying any mammal or bird without written permission from the landowner. 2. The right of public access to navigable waters of the State are protected under Article 10, Section 4 of the California Constitution. 3. It is unlawful to take any mammal or bird or to discharge any firearm on lands posted with "PRIVATE PROPERTY NO HUNTING" signs that meet certain specifications. 4. The Fish and Game Commission shall hold no fewer than 10 regular meetings per calendar year, no more than 2 of which may be held in Sacramento. 5. A course in hunter education, including provisions to designate hunter instructors, is established in order to promote hunter safety, principles of conservation, and sportsmanship. 6. The department is authorized to audit county expenditures from its fish and wildlife propagation fund to determine compliance with existing law. PROPOSED LAW This bill would make several changes in the Fish and Game Code relating to the above provisions of existing law. 1. It would reduce the mandatory meetings of the Commission from 10 to 8, and the requirement of eight meetings would be conditioned on available funding. The number of meetings in Sacramento would increase from two to three. 2. Section 2017 would be repealed. Section 2017 prohibits hunting, even by the landowner, if the landowner has posted the property with "no hunting" signs, according to information provided to the sponsor by the DFG. Section 2016 would remain in effect. Section 2016 prohibits entry on lands marked with "no trespass" signs. Section 2016 would be amended to provide that it does not prohibit the public from using navigable waters as provided by the Constitution. 3. The hunter education and instructor program would be amended to create an incentive to recruit and retain hunter education instructors. The incentive would be to offer enhanced access to hunting or a lottery for deer tags from the existing quota of tags. The department would be authorized to provide instructors with greater access through existing programs such as the Private Lands Management Program, the Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement Program, or other cooperative agreements with public agencies that own or administer lands or waters. The department would also be allowed to enter into cooperative agreements with landowners who seek depredation permits that would be limited to feral pigs, wild turkeys, or deer. 4. The auditing provisions of Sec. 13104 would be amended to provide that the department may suspend expenditures or seek reimbursement from county fish and wildlife propagation funds if irregularities are demonstrated in an audit. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT AB 1254 is sponsored by the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance, and approximately 36 member organizations have joined in its support letter. The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Commission to adjust its meeting schedule to address funding shortfalls, and to authorize the Department to offer special hunting opportunities to qualified hunter education instructors. The sponsors state that because of an increase in hunting in some areas of the state, demand for qualified instructors has outpaced supply. Another purpose of the bill is to clarify the appropriate code section regarding navigable waters. The sponsors believe the bill, which codifies a constitutional provision, would provide a centralized reference for hunters, fishermen, local law enforcement authorities, and others who may rely on the Fish and Game Code and who would not otherwise be aware of a constitutional provision. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION None received SUPPORT California Outdoor Heritage Association (and 36 affiliated organizations) Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California The California Sportsman's Lobby OPPOSITION None Received