BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 376
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 376 (Fong and Huffman)
          As Amended  March 14, 2011
          Majority vote 

           WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE    13-0 APPROPRIATIONS      10-1        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Huffman, Halderman, Bill  |Ayes:|Blumenfield, Bradford,    |
          |     |Berryhill, Blumenfield,   |     |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
          |     |Campos, Fong, Gatto,      |     |Davis, Gatto, Hill, Lara, |
          |     |Roger Hernández, Hueso,   |     |Mitchell, Solorio         |
          |     |Jones, Lara, Olsen,       |     |                          |
          |     |Yamada                    |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |Nays:|Nielsen                   |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Makes it unlawful for any person to possess, sell or 
          trade a shark fin.  Specifically,  this bill  :

          1)Makes it unlawful for any person to possess, sell, offer for 
            sale, trade or distribute a shark fin.

          2)Provides an exception to the prohibition on possession of 
            shark fins for any person who holds a permit to possess a 
            shark fin for scientific purposes, and for any person who 
            holds a license or permit to take sharks for recreational or 
            commercial purposes and possesses a shark fin consistent with 
            that license or permit.

          3)Defines a shark fin as a raw, dried or otherwise processed 
            detached fin or tail of a shark.

          4)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the 
            importance of sharks for the ocean ecosystem, and the impacts 
            of the practice and market demand for shark finning.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Makes it unlawful to sell, purchase, deliver for commercial 
            purposes, or possess on any commercial fishing vessel any 
            shark fin or shark tail or portion thereof that has been 








                                                                  AB 376
                                                                  Page  2


            removed from the carcass, with the exception of thresher shark 
            tails and fins whose original shape remains unaltered, which 
            may be possessed on a registered commercial fishing vessel if 
            the corresponding carcass is in possession for each fin and 
            tail (Fish and Game Code Section 7704).

          2)Authorizes certain species of sharks to be taken or landed 
            with a recreational or commercial fishing license, subject to 
            specified take limits and gear restrictions.  The taking of 
            any white shark for recreational or commercial purposes is 
            prohibited.

          3)Prohibits the deterioration or waste of fish taken in state 
            waters.

          4)Federal law also bans the practice of shark finning in federal 
            waters.




           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)

          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  :  Sharks, of which there are some 400 species 
          worldwide, are top marine predators and live in oceans around 
          the world.  The critical importance of sharks to the health, 
          balance and biodiversity of the ocean ecosystem is well 
          recognized in the scientific literature. According to National 
          Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, most 
          sharks are vulnerable to overfishing because they are 
          long-lived, take many years to mature and only have a few young 
          at a time.  NOAA indicates that since the mid-1980s a number of 
          shark populations in the United States have declined, primarily 








                                                                  AB 376
                                                                  Page  3


          due to overfishing.  According to officials at the Monterey Bay 
          Aquarium, over a third of shark species worldwide are currently 
          threatened with extinction.  Demand for shark fin, which this 
          bill targets, is largely believed to be the primary driver 
          behind overfishing of sharks and recent shark population 
          declines.  According to a recent article in the New York Times, 
          up to 73 million sharks are killed annually for their fins, 
          primarily to make shark fin soup.   

          Several recent peer reviewed scientific reports document the 
          decline in shark populations around the world, including off the 
          coast of California, and are described in detail in the Assembly 
          Water, Parks and Wildlife's Committee policy analysis of this 
          bill. 

          Supporters of this bill note that sharks are critical to the 
          health and balance of the ocean ecosystem and their extinction 
          would be devastating to the biodiversity of the oceans of the 
          world.  They emphasize demand for shark fin drives overfishing 
          of sharks and has contributed significantly to recent shark 
          population declines, with some species depleted by as much as 
          90% and over a third of shark species threatened with 
          extinction.  Supporters assert that currently there are no 
          recognized sustainable shark fisheries, and note that sharks are 
          particularly susceptible to overfishing due to low reproductive 
          rates and their role as top predators in the marine food chain.  
          Supporters also assert that current state and federal laws have 
          been ineffective in curbing the practice of shark finning as 
          long as trade in fins is allowed to continue in response to 
          market demand.  While recognizing that shark finning has been 
          important to Chinese culture for centuries, supporters assert 
          collapse of ocean ecosystems must take precedence over cultural 
          culinary heritage, noting also that many governments and 
          businesses in the Pacific region have recognized the urgency to 
          save sharks and implemented progressive protection measures.  
          Recreational fishing organizations in support assert that shark 
          finning is inconsistent with sustainable fishing practices.  
          Some supporters also emphasize the cruelty of shark finning, 
          which often involves cutting off the fins and tails of sharks 
          and throwing the fish back in the ocean alive where they are 
          likely to die a slow death.  Some supporters note high levels of 
          mercury in shark meat makes them unhealthy to eat as well.  

          Opponents of this bill, which include some restaurant owners in 








                                                                  AB 376
                                                                  Page  4


          San Francisco, assert that banning the possession or sale of 
          shark fins will deprive Chinese Americans of the ability to 
          enjoy the long valued cultural tradition and heritage of shark 
          fin soup.  According to the Los Angeles Times (Times), shark fin 
          soup was a luxury item in traditional Chinese culture, once 
          reserved for emperors and kings, with a bowl of soup today 
          costing as much as $100.  The Times indicates the growing middle 
          class in China has created new market demand for the soup which 
          is also popular among Chinese Americans.  According to the San 
          Francisco Chronicle (Chronicle), shark fin soup has been a 
          traditional Chinese dish going back to the Han Dynasty some 
          1,800 years ago.  The Chronicle reports 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 ten people.

          Legislation to ban shark finning has recently been proposed in 
          China by a member of the Chinese parliament.  Legislation 
          banning shark finning has also been enacted in the State of 
          Hawaii, is pending before the state Legislature in Oregon, and 
          recently passed the Washington State House on a vote of 95-1.

          Some opponents of this bill have suggested that shark finning 
          should be regulated through greater enforcement rather than by 
          banning trade of shark fins.  Supporters of this bill note in 
          rebuttal to that argument that current state and federal laws 
          have proven ineffective in stemming the overfishing of sharks 
          which is driven by the market demand and lucrative trade in 
          shark fins.  Most shark fins in California are imported from 
          other countries where California has little or no ability to 
          police or control finning practices and no way of knowing 
          whether shark fins in those countries are sustainably harvested. 
           Supporters also assert a ban on importation of listed species 
          would likely be unenforceable due to the difficulty in 
          determining with accuracy the species of the shark after the 
          fins have been dried and processed.  For species that are not 
          yet listed as threatened or endangered, supporters assert 
          maintaining a sustainable shark fishery is extremely difficult 
          if not impossible due to the life history of sharks as apex 
          predators with low reproductive rates that make them 
          particularly susceptible to overfishing and rapid depletion.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916) 
          319-2096








                                                                  AB 376
                                                                  Page  5




                                                               FN:  0000206