BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 376
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 376 (Fong and Huffman) - As Amended: March 14, 2011
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 13-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill bans the possession, sale, or distribution of shark
fins, except for individuals who possess fins consistent with a
permit for scientific research or recreational or commercial
activity.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor unknown annual costs, likely no more than tens of
thousands of dollars, to the Department of Fish and Game
(DFG), whose wardens may be involved in some aspects of
enforcement, such as investigations of shark fin sales in
local markets. (Fish and Game Preservation Fund or General
Fund)
(DFG reports that it may incur costs of as high as hundreds of
thousands of dollars to investigate reports of illegal shark
finning and selling operations. However, existing law
prohibits the practice of shark finning; presumably DFG would
be obligated to investigate such reports even if this bill did
not become law. Therefore, the costs of DFG investigations
into reports of illegal shark finning and the subsequent
selling of fins obtained through that practice should not be
attributed to this bill.)
2)Minor annual state and local revenue, likely in the tens of
thousands of dollars, resulting from fines levied for
possessing of or trading in shark fins.
COMMENTS
AB 376
Page 2
1)Rationale. The author cites scientific documentation of sharp
declines in shark populations in recent years and notes that
consumption of shark fin soup is believed partly responsible
for the decline. The author acknowledges that current law
bans the practice of shark finning, in which the fins of the
shark are removed and the remainder of the shark body returned
to the water and the practice by which many shark fins are
believed to have been obtained. The author contends this
prohibition has proven insufficient to stem trade in shark
fins in California, thereby necessitating its prohibition.
2)Background.
a) Shark Fin Soup-A Delicacy in Demand. As described in
the policy committee analysis, shark fin soup has been a
luxury item in traditional Chinese culture. The growing
middle class in China has created new market demand for the
soup, which is also popular among some Chinese Americans.
The policy committee analysis cites a San Francisco
Chronicle report that dried shark fin in San Francisco's
Chinatown today sells for $178 to $500 a pound, and shark
fin soup typically costs $250 to $500 for 10 people.
b) Shark Populations in Decline, Despite Finning Bans.
Sharks are top-level predators crucial to ocean ecosystem
health. They are especially susceptible to overfishing
because they take many years to mature and produce few
offspring. In recognition of this susceptibility, both
federal and state laws ban the practice of finning, which
includes possession of shark fins or tails removed from the
carcass.
Despite these federal and state bans on finning, shark
populations have declined recently. The policy committee
analysis cites several peer-reviewed studies conducted on
various shark species in differing geographic areas. The
specific findings of the studies are summarized by
officials with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, who claim that
over one-third of shark species worldwide are currently
threatened with extinction.
3)Fines This Low May Not Deter Shark Fin Trade. Proponents and
Opponents this bill acknowledge that a bowl of shark fin soup,
which uses very little shark fin, can sell for hundreds of
dollars. This bill envisions fines for the unlawful
AB 376
Page 3
possession of shark fins that, according to the Fish and Game
Code, cannot exceed $1,000 or one year in jail. Some shark
fin purveyors may view the potential for fines and jail time
as an acceptable cost of doing business. Under such a
scenario, this bill would do little to dissuade trade in shark
fins.
Some advocates of shark fin bans note that other states have
enacted bans that carry penalties in the thousands of dollars.
Bill proponents contend such large fines might put small
restaurants out of business. Proponents further contend that
restaurateurs who might otherwise serve shark fin soup may be
unwillilling to risk the inconvenience and social stigma
associated with fines and jail time, as well as possible state
and federal investigations.
4)Support. Supporters, including a long list of conservation
organizations, contend the growing demand for shark fin soup
is driving the decline in shark populations, the practice by
which many of these fins are obtained is wasteful and cruel,
and bans on the practice of finning have been insufficient to
stop the trade in shark fins. Supporters also argue that bans
on the importation of the fins of only endangered shark are
ineffective because it is difficult and costly to identify the
type of shark from which a fin came.
5)Opposition . Though there are no opponents officially
registered to this bill at the time this analysis was
prepared, opponents of banning the shark fin trade have
claimed that such a ban unfairly eliminates a long-held
Chinese tradition and efforts should focus on better
enforcement of existing prohibitions against the practice of
shark finning.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081