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