BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 376
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 376 (Fong)
As Amended May 19, 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.
5)Allows any restaurant, before January 1, 2013, to possess,
sell, offer for sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin
possessed by that restaurant as of January 1, 2012, that is
prepared for consumption.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 376
Page 2
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
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
due to overfishing. According to officials at the Monterey Bay
AB 376
Page 3
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
San Francisco, assert that banning the possession or sale of
shark fins will deprive Chinese Americans of the ability to
AB 376
Page 4
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.
To reduce potential financial impact on small businesses this
bill as amended includes a grandfather clause that allows
restaurants that possess existing stock of shark fins as of
January 1, 2012 to continue to possess, sell, offer for sale,
trade, or distribute those shark fins until January 1, 2013.
AB 376
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0000736