BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1345
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1345 (Calderon)
As Amended May 11, 2010
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :23-5
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 7-4
--------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Fuller, |
| |Anderson, Arambula, Tom |
| |Berryhill, |
| |De La Torre, Fletcher |
| | |
|-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Caballero, Gatto, Salas, |
| |Yamada |
| | |
--------------------------------
SUMMARY : Extends to 2016 the exemption from a ban on importing
kangaroo parts contained in the existing law, 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 the
ban on importing kangaroo parts 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.
SB 1345
Page 2
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) The kangaroos were harvested lawfully under Australian
laws, international conventions, and the federal Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.);
b) DFG is annually informed by the Australian government
that the commercial harvest of 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 less. The import ban will apply if DFG fails
to receive this report;
c) This exemption remains in effect only until January 1,
2011, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later
statute, enacted on or before January 1, 2011, deletes or
extends that date.
FISCAL EFFECT : Nonfiscal
COMMENTS : This bill extends a provision allowing products made
from wild kangaroos harvested in Australia to be legally sold in
California, subject to certain conditions. The exemption was
initially enacted with passage of SB 880 (Calderon) Chapter 576,
Statutes of 2007. Kangaroos are marsupial (pouch-bearing)
mammals endemic to the continent of Australia. Of the 47
species, several of the smaller species, such as wallabies and
pademelons, have declined since European colonization. The
larger species of Kangaroos are not endangered, and are abundant
in some areas, leading to an annual cull or organized commercial
hunt. In 2010, only five species can legally be harvested: the
Red, Eastern Gray, Western Gray, Euro or Wallaroo kangaroo and
Bennett's Wallaby, found only on King Island, Tasmania.
An annual quota is set for each region where the cull is
conducted, based on the population numbers of the kangaroos in
that area. The quotas are a scientifically estimated sustained
yield and represent an upper harvest limit independent of
industry demand, according to the Australian Department of the
SB 1345
Page 3
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. For 2009, the quota
was 4.1 million animals, but only 1.9 million animals were
actually harvested. The quota for 2010 is just over 4 million,
and the total population of kangaroos in the harvest area is
over 27 million.
The author has introduced this bill to ensure that importation
and sale of products made from kangaroo hides, such as soccer
shoes and boots used by law enforcement, remains legal in
California. Prior to passage of SB 880 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 in 2011 and sale of kangaroo products
would again be illegal in California.
Supporters also argue that this bill is needed to ensure that
the products made from leather of non-endangered kangaroos
remain legal for sale in California, and that without this bill
an ambiguity will be created in law and local retailers will
face possible litigation exposure. They assert that allowing the
current exemption to sunset would only put California retailers
at a competitive disadvantage vis-?-vis out-of-state retailers
because kangaroo products may be legally imported and sold in
the other 49 states, and can be purchased by Californians over
the internet. The Australian government supports this bill and
asserts that kangaroo harvesting is important for both kangaroo
population management and sustainable land care, and that there
have been no adverse impacts on kangaroo populations in over
twenty years from commercial harvesting.
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.
This argument is contradicted by Australian literature which
indicates that the endangered species are very distinct and
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.
The opponents' main argument focuses on their objection to
harvesting wildlife for profit, which, they point out, is not
done in California, as well as to what they perceive as inhumane
methods of killing kangaroos, particularly joeys (baby
SB 1345
Page 4
kangaroos) that may be found in the pouches of mother kangaroos
which have been shot. The Australian Code of Practice for
humane shooting of kangaroos requires 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. Supporters point out that these requirements in
the Code of Practice are intended to avoid leaving any joeys
orphaned, as they generally can not survive on their own. Royal
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Australia
(RSPCA Australia), in its review of compliance with the Code of
Practice 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Igor Lacan / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0005153