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