BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 376|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 376
Author: Fong (D) and Huffman (D), et al.
Amended: 5/19/11 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES & WATER COMM. : 7-0, 6/28/11
AYES: Pavley, La Malfa, Evans, Kehoe, Padilla, Simitian,
Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cannella, Fuller
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 8/25/11
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Lieu
NO VOTE RECORDED: Emmerson, Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 65-8, 5/23/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Shark fins
SOURCE : Asian Pacific American Ocean Harmony Alliance
Monterey Bay Aquarium
DIGEST : This bill makes it unlawful for any person to
possess, sell or trade a shark fin.
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law :
1. Makes it unlawful to sell, purchase, deliver for
CONTINUED
AB 376
Page
2
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.
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.
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,
AB 376
Page
3
2012, that is prepared for consumption.
Background
Section 7704 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits the sale,
purchase, commercial delivery, or possession on a
commercial vessel of any shark fin that has been removed
from the carcass. Fins of the thresher shark may be
removed and possessed on a commercial fishing vessel so
long as the fins are unaltered and the corresponding
carcass is in possession.
Several other sections of the Fish and Game Code put
restrictions on the commercial taking of shark including a
prohibition of the taking of any white shark and a
prohibition on taking of shark and swordfish with a drift
gill net without an appropriate permit. Furthermore, Fish
and Game regulations establish recreational take
restrictions for a number of specific shark species
including Leopard, soupfin, mako, thresher, and blue shark.
Federal law regulates the shark fishery under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
This act has been amended, including by the Shark
Conservation Act of 2010, to prohibit the landing of sharks
without their fins attached. Federal law also prohibits
shark finning. Shark finning, as described by the National
Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries) in its 2009
annual Shark Finning Report to Congress, is the "practice
of taking a shark, removing a fin or fins (whether or not
including the tail), and returning the remainder of the
shark to the sea. Because the meat of the shark is usually
of low value, the finless sharks are thrown back into the
sea and subsequently die." Since sharks need to
continuously swim to breath, the finned shark either
suffocates to death or is preyed upon.
Comments
Recently, Washington, Hawaii, Guam, and the Commonwealth of
Northern Mariana Islands enacted legislation to eliminate
the shark fin trade within their territorial boundaries.
The Oregon Legislature has passed legislation that would
AB 376
Page
4
establish a shark fin ban.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
Enforcement Unknown costs, potentially in
theSpecial* tens of thousands per
year
* Fish and Game Preservation Fund
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/25/11)
Asian Pacific American Ocean Harmony Alliance (c0-source)
Monterey Bay Aquarium (co-source)
7th Generation Advisors
Action for Animals
Animal Place
Aquarium of the Bay
Asian Americans for Community Involvement
Asian and Pacific Islanders California Action Network
Betty Yee, Member, State Board of Equalization
Born Free USA
Cal Coast
California Academy of Science
California Association of Zoos and Aquariums
California Coastal Commission
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California League of Conservation Voters
California Travel Association
COARE
Coastside Fishing Club
County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisor
Defenders of Wildlife
Environment California
Environmental Defense Fund
Food Empowerment Project
AB 376
Page
5
Green Chamber of Commerce
Heal the Bay
Jim Toomey - Sherman's Lagoon
Natural Resources Defense Council
Ocean Conservancy
Oceana
Orange County Baykeepers
Orange County Coastkeeper
Pacific Environment
PawPAC
Planning and Conservation League
Reef Check
San Francisco Baykeeper
SeaStewards
Shark Savers
Sierra Club California
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Los
Angeles
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Santa Cruz
The Bay Institute
The Body Glove
The Humane Society of the United States
The Nature Conservancy
The Sportfishing Conservancy
United Anglers
United Anglers of Southern California
WildAid
Wildcoast
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/25/11)
Asian Food Trade Association
Asian Nutrition and Health Association
Chung Chou City, Inc.
National Chinese Welfare Council of Los Angeles County
Oriental Food Association
Stockton Seafood Center, Inc.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : A coalition of primarily
environmental organizations including the Monterey Bay
Aquarium, Defenders of Wildlife, and the United Angles of
Southern California, state in support of the bill, "Sharks
are in serious trouble as a result of the international
shark fin trade, with some populations declined by 99%.
AB 376
Page
6
The demand for high-value shark fin (as opposed to other
low-value shark products) continues to drive the decimation
of sharks. Sharks are critical apex predators that keep
our ecosystems working. Banning the shark fin trade is the
only way to save sharks- fin trade bans just like AB 376
have been enacted or are poised to be enacted in other US
states and in countries around the world. Our regulations
cannot deter actors in international waters, but ending the
fin trade here can."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Asian Food Trade
Association opposes this bill because they believe that if
the shark fin is to be banned, then shark meat and all
shark-related commercial products should also be banned.
Otherwise, the bill unfairly targets the Chinese and Asian
eating habits.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
Furutani, Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon,
Halderman, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso,
Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell,
Nestande, Norby, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino,
Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao,
Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NOES: Donnelly, Eng, Fuentes, Hagman, Harkey, Ma, Mansoor,
Nielsen
NO VOTE RECORDED: Charles Calderon, Conway, Cook, Gorell,
Grove, Hall, Olsen
CTW:do 8/29/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
AB 376
Page
7