BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 1162 HEARING DATE: June 28, 2011
AUTHOR: Chesbro URGENCY: No
VERSION: June 20, 2011 CONSULTANT: Katharine Moore
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Wildlife: poaching.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Department of Fish and Game's (Department's) mission is to
manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources,
and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological
values and for their use and enjoyment by the public. In order
to achieve these goals, the Department is authorized to oversee
hunting and fishing activities in California for both commercial
and personal purposes.
According to recent news reports, the economic downturn of the
past few years has coincided with a surge in illegal poaching
activity and its accompanying illicit gains. This is consistent
with the Department's records which show an increase in hunting
violations to 3,371 in 2009, compared to the 1999 - 2009 mean of
approximately 2,075 violations annually. While there are likely
to be variations in enforcement efforts reflected in this data,
hunting violations are clearly an ongoing concern. On the
commercial black market, certain big game species or selected
parts of species (e.g. bear gall bladder) can reportedly be sold
at a profit that, while difficult to determine, may easily
exceed any established penalties. California has many fewer
wardens on patrol compared to other large states with
significant wilderness areas, such as Florida and Texas, and the
violations reported may considerably understate poaching's true
extent .
Existing law authorizes the Department to assess civil penalties
of not more than $10,000 for each animal illegally taken (Fish
and Game Code (FGC) § 2580 et seq.). Further, it provides that
anyone who illegally takes or possesses wildlife for profit or
personal gain is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of
1
not less than $5,000 and not more than $40,000, or imprisonment
in a county jail for up to one year, or both (FGC § 12000 et
seq.). Subsequent violations are subject to an increased
penalty, up to one year in jail, or both the fine and
imprisonment. Similarly, someone who illegally takes or
possesses in the field more than three times the daily bag limit
or possesses more than three times the legal possession limit is
guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a similar fine,
imprisonment or both. Second or subsequent violations of this
same offense are subject to increased minimum ($10,000) and
maximum ($50,000) financial penalties, up to one year in jail,
or both.
Existing law also authorizes the Department to suspend or
permanently revoke a person's hunting license for illegally
taking wildlife for profit or personal gain, or for illegally
taking or possessing in the field more than three times the
daily bag limit. Additionally, existing law authorizes a judge
to order the seizure or forfeiture of any device or apparatus
used while committing these violations.
AB 708 (Huffman, c. 290, Statutes of 2009) recently updated
elements of the penalties for specified commercial fishing and
hunting violations, including bag limit violations, in the
existing law described above.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would:
Subject any person who knowingly and illegally takes a
trophy deer, elk, antelope, wild turkey or bighorn sheep in
specified ways to a fine of not less than $5,000, nor more
than $40,000, for deer, elk, antelope and bighorn sheep
violations, and a fine of not less than $2,000, nor more
than $5,000, for wild turkey violations, or imprisonment in
county jail for not more than one year, or both a fine and
imprisonment.
Require the Fish and Game Commission to adopt
regulations to implement the above provision.
Subject any person who uses a signal-emitting device, as
defined, to take a bear with the intention of selling or
trafficking in bear parts to a fine of $10,000 per bear
part.
Based upon the violation, require the fines described
above to be deposited into either the Big Game Management
Account or the Upland Game Bird Account, to be subsequently
used for appropriate big game management and upland bird
conservation purposes, respectively. Additionally, fifty
2
percent of the fine revenue shall be paid to the county in
which the offense was committed to reimburse specified
costs associated with the violation.
Update suspension, revocation and forfeiture provisions
to incorporate these changes and add a provision that the
Fish and Game Commission may restore revoked hunting or
fishing licenses or privileges.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author states, "Ŭt]his bill aims to increase criminal
penalties for serious poaching violations and help ensure that
the full market value of wildlife is reflected in those
penalties. Current financial penalties for the illegal take of
certain game species, particularly trophy big game animals, do
not adequately cover the market value of those resources. As an
example, some hunting tags for big game species (elk, antelope,
deer and bighorn sheep) now sell for over $50,000 while the
fines for illegally taking those animals generally total only a
fraction of that amount."
"In the last several years in California, there have been a
number of high-profile poaching cases involving big game,
including the illegal take of trophy mule deer from Yosemite
National Park and the shooting and subsequent abandonment of two
elk at Fort Hunter Liggett in Monterey County. Deer violations
are one of the most common violations, with many deer targeted
solely for their antlers or size."
"AB 1162 would authorize similar penalties for commercial bear
violations. This would help address the continued commercial
demand for bear gall bladders and other bear parts."
"While higher fines would help create an important deterrent for
poaching big game animals, financial penalties alone may not be
sufficient. AB 1162 also authorizes the Department to revoke a
violator's hunting license for certain egregious violations. In
addition, the bill authorizes a judge to order equipment seizure
for those same violations."
According to the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance, "AB 1162
Ŭaddresses] egregious poaching cases where violators knowingly
target trophy game with certain illegal methods, including the
use of bait, the use of artificial lights, taking game out of
season and wasting game meat. These violations not only
negatively impact opportunities for legal hunts, but can also
reduce the genetic pool necessary for maintaining healthy
wildlife populations ? ŬS]everal other states, including New
3
Mexico, Idaho, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Montana, have implemented
laws similar to AB 1162 in recent years to address ongoing big
game poaching problems, and the new laws have been well received
by state fish and game agencies, hunters and private landowners
alike."
The California Fish and Game Wardens' Association further points
out that "California has seen unprecedented poaching of all
forms of wildlife. Wildlife crime is prevalent in our state ?
It is appropriate to impose stiffer penalties as deterrents upon
those who purposefully violate wildlife law."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The California Sportsman's Lobby objected to a proposed increase
in civil penalties in an earlier version of the bill. The
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California, also writing
regarding an earlier version of the bill, states that
"Ŭe]xisting law should be sufficient to discourage most illegal
activity. If not, the increased penalties proposed in AB 1162
would not be likely to deter it, either ? The relatively few
people who are hard core violators would probably ignore the
proposed higher penalties as well." The Coalition continues
that it does not believe "that AB 1162 would result in
significantly higher compliance, but it could cause the
imposition of excessive penalties for lower level violations."
The most recent amendments to AB 1162 remove any changes to
civil penalties. It is unclear from the Outdoor Sportsmen's
Coalition of California's letter if they object to the current
proposed changes in potential criminal fines, the deleted
changes to proposed civil penalties or both.
COMMENTS
Are there incentives to poach? Tags or specific licenses to
hunt big game are required in addition to regular hunting
licenses. The number of bear tags sold, roughly 25,000 annually
for the last 5 years, is not limited, but the bear hunting
season is stopped as soon as 1,700 bears are taken. Only
approximately 1,500 bear were taken in 2010, but the limit was
reached each year from 2006 - 2009. It is illegal in California
to sell any bear parts - even from legally-taken bears. For
other big game, such as elk and antelope, the limited number of
animals available result in a lottery-style system to purchase
tags. Hunters purchase a chance at a tag (currently $8.13, for
example, for antelope) and then pay for the tag itself if they
are chosen. Prices vary for the tag depending upon the animal,
but residents can easily pay several hundred dollars for one,
4
and non-residents, considerably more. Based upon the number of
entries in the lottery and tags issued, the chance to receive a
tag in any given year can be less than 1 in 100 or worse. A
limited number of tags are also available through random drawing
(with unlimited entries) and fund-raising auctions. In 2010 the
maximum prices achieved at auction for Golden Opportunity Deer,
Grizzly Island Elk and Bighorn Sheep were $29,000, $32,500 and
$80,000, respectively. Licenses and tags for the legal hunting
of big game are very expensive with no guarantee of success.
What is a "signal-emitting device" ? These are defined in the
bill to include any device capable of generating radio,
cellular, satellite, or other signal transmission for purposes
of providing communication or location information. A global
positioning system (GPS) device is an example.
SUPPORT
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance (sponsor)
California Fish and Game Wardens' Association
PAW PAC
OPPOSITION
Outdoor Sportsman's Coalition of California (previous version)
California Sportsmen's Lobby (previous version)
5