BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1345
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared William Huffman, Chair
SB 1345 (Calderon) - As Amended: May 11, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 23-5
SUBJECT : Prohibited importation of dead animal parts
SUMMARY : Extends to 2016 the exemption from a ban on importing
kangaroo parts, if some reporting requirements are met.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires that the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) receive
confirmation, in writing, from the Australian government that
the commercial harvest of kangaroos in any future year will
not exceed the official quota established for that year,
consistent with Australian national and state law, and of the
sustainability principles on which that quota is based.
2)Extends the sunset clause of the current exemption from 2011
to 2016.
EXISTING LAW
1)Makes it unlawful to import into this state for commercial
purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within
the state, the dead body or any part or product thereof, of
any polar bear, leopard, ocelot, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, sable
antelope, wolf, zebra, whale, cobra, python, sea turtle,
colobus monkey, kangaroo, vicuna, sea otter, free-roaming
feral horse, dolphin or porpoise, Spanish lynx, or elephant.
2)Makes a violation of this section a misdemeanor, punishable by
a fine of $1,000 to $5,000 and/or six months in county jail.
3)Contains an exemption, allowing the importation of kangaroo
parts provided the following:
a) That the kangaroos were harvested lawfully under
Australian national and state law, the federal Endangered
Species Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), and
applicable international conventions, and
b) That the DFG is annually informed, by the
Australian government that the commercial harvest of
SB 1345
Page 2
kangaroos in any future year will not exceed the official
quota established for 2007 or the lawful take of
kangaroos in each subsequent year, whichever is the
lesser. If DFG fails to receive this report it shall
halt the importation of kangaroo parts into this state
for commercial purposes, and possession with intent to
sell, or sale within the state will be subject to the
provisions of this section.
c) That this exemption will remain in effect only until
January 1 , 2011, and as of that date is repealed,
unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before
January 1, 2011, deletes or extends that date.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Background: Kangaroos are marsupial (pouch-bearing) mammals in
the family Macropodidae, endemic to the continent of
Australia. Of the 47 species in the macropod family, the four
larger species are referred to as kangaroos, while their
smaller relatives include wallabies, quokkas, and pademelons.
Several of the smaller species (wallabies, pademelons) have
declined since European colonization, mostly because of
habitat loss and predation from the introduced dogs, cats, and
foxes. The larger species - the Kangaroos - are not
endangered however, and are abundant in some areas, leading to
an annual "cull" or organized commercial hunt. An annual
quota is set for each region where the annual cull is
conducted, based on the population numbers of the kangaroos in
that area. Only five species can be harvested (as of 2010):
the Red, Eastern Gray, Western Gray, and Euro (Wallaroo)
kangaroo and Bennett's Wallaby (only on King Island,
Tasmania). According to the Australian Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, the quotas are "a
scientifically estimated sustained yield and represent an
upper harvest limit independent of industry demand". "To
ensure there is no detriment to any species in any region,
each state is divided into zones for monitoring and
quota-setting." Also, "state-wide quotas are rarely met
although they may be met for a particular zone. Over the
period from 2001 to 2009, the total number of kangaroos
harvested has been 64 per cent of the total annual quota over
SB 1345
Page 3
that period". For 2009, the quota was 4.1 million animals,
but (perhaps reflecting the low prices for kangaroo meat and
leather) only 1.9 million animals were actually harvested; the
population of kangaroos in the harvest area was estimated at
just over 27 million. The quota for 2010 is just over 4
million animals. Kangaroo leather is used for the manufacture
of some specialty products (e.g., soccer shoes, and boots used
by law enforcement).
2)Purpose : The author has introduced this bill to ensure that
importation and sale of products made from kangaroo hides
remains legal in California. Prior to passage of SB 880
(Calderon) in 2007, California was the only state that
prohibited importation of kangaroo products. If no action is
taken by the Legislature, then SB 880 will sunset by its own
terms and kangaroo products would again be an illegal
commodity in California. The Committee may consider such a
result to be impractical, given that some degree of retail
trade has now become established, and in fact, had been
established to some degree even before the ban was lifted.
3)Arguments in support : Because kangaroo products may be legally
imported and sold in the other 49 states, and can be purchased
by Californians over the internet, the author contends that
allowing the SB 880 exemption to sunset would only put
California sporting good stores and other retailers selling
athletic shoes at a competitive disadvantage vis-?-vis
out-of-state retailers. The supporters argue that the bill is
needed to ensure that the products made from leather of
non-endangered kangaroos remain legal for sale in California,
and that without SB 1345 an ambiguity will be created in law
and retailers will face possible litigation exposure. The
sponsor (5.11 Tactical) points out the importance of kangaroo
leather in production of specialty boots used by law
enforcement. The Australian government supports this bill and
asserts that there have been no adverse impacts on kangaroo
populations in over twenty years from commercial harvesting.
4)Arguments in opposition: Opponents, primarily organizations
devoted to animal protection, argue that Australia's
regulation of kangaroo hunting does not ensure that only
abundant species of kangaroo are being killed. Kangaroo
harvesting occurs primarily at night, and opponents claim that
many endangered species continue to be killed by hunters who
cannot differentiate between endangered species and the
SB 1345
Page 4
abundant species that can legally be harvested. This argument
is contradicted by Australian literature which indicates that
the endangered species (some wallabies and pademelons) are
very distinct (for one, they are much smaller) and are
entirely different-looking from the large and abundant
kangaroos. The contacted expert indicated that he knew of no
instances of an endangered species getting accidentally shot
during the kangaroo hunt.
In addition, the opposition expresses a lack of confidence in
the Australian government's management of the species and
claims that some species of kangaroos are being shot at a rate
which exceeds their reproduction rate. This argument
contradicted by the past three decades of kangaroo research,
which indicate a stable kangaroo population whose size is
influenced mainly by its forage food availability (which, in
turn, is controlled by precipitation: kangaroo populations
decline during droughts, when the vegetation is scarce and the
animals starve to death), rather than by harvesting.
The main argument raised by opponents is their objection to
harvesting wildlife for profit (which, they point out, is not
done in California), as well as to what are perceived as
inhumane methods of killing kangaroos, particularly joeys
(baby kangaroos) found in the pouches of mother kangaroos
which are shot. The Australian Code of Practice for humane
shooting of kangaroos provides that "Shot females must be
examined for pouch young and if one is present it must also be
killed. Decapitation with a sharp instrument in very small
hairless young or a properly executed heavy blow to destroy
the brain in larger young are effective means of causing
sudden and painless death." The latter argument is likely to
be factually correct in that joeys are indeed likely killed as
a result of the hunt. Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Australia (RSPCA Australia), in its review
of compliance with the Code of Practice for the Humane
Shooting of Kangaroos notes that "RSPCA Australia believes
that the only solution which would avoid the potential of
cruelty to pouch young would be to avoid shooting females
altogether".
5)Comment - Kangaroos as pests or a resource : The Committee may
wish to consider a novel suggestion for kangaroo management,
namely the concept that an increased market for kangaroo meat
and leather would lead to a better environmental outcome in
SB 1345
Page 5
Australia by allowing a reduction in the sheep population and
a recovery of overgrazed lands (argument advanced by Prof. G.
Grigg from the University of Queensland in Brisbane).
Explanation from Prof. Grigg: some kangaroos have become more
abundant since European colonization both because their
predators (e.g., dingoes) have declined, and especially
because of the expansion of irrigated pasture lands. Those
pasture lands are used for grazing sheep, and many areas
suffer from overgrazing and consequent erosion and
desertification. Unfortunately, the kangaroos - which are
also grazing animals - are then perceived to be (a) competing
with sheep, and (b) degrading the land, and are currently seen
as "pests" by both many ranchers and some local governments in
Australia. The annual cull ends up being in part a means of
"pest control" (which, regrettably, allows ranchers to stock
even more sheep), as the current prices for kangaroo leather
are low (and even lower for kangaroo meat), reflecting a lack
of market demand. According to this argument, if the demand
for kangaroo were higher, the prices paid for kangaroo meat
and leather would rise (because the kangaroo supply is
strictly limited by the quota), and the ranchers may be able
to reduce their sheep herds and instead focus on providing
pasture to kangaroos. The potential result, prof. Grigg
asserts, would be a reduction in overgrazing damage to
Australian grasslands, and also a shift in perception of
kangaroos from a pest to a resource. However, the opponents
of this concept note that after decades of kangaroo harvesting
little has been done by the ranchers to either conserve
kangaroos or improve their habitat.
6)DFG has an official "neutral" position on this bill, and
reports that they have successfully received an official
report from Australia on the 2009 kangaroo quota and harvest
numbers. The opponents of the bill argue that the 2009 report
"was received at the last minute" just prior to the bill's
hearing in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
5.11 Tactical (sponsor)
Adidas America, Inc.
SB 1345
Page 6
Australian Consulate-General, Los Angeles
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Club Deportivo Chivas USA
Los Angeles Galaxy
Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
US Youth Soccer
Opposition
Humane Society of the United States
One individual
Analysis Prepared by : Igor Lacan / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096