BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER | | Senator Fran Pavley, Chair | | 2011-2012 Regular Session | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILL NO: SB 1107 HEARING DATE: March 27, 2012 AUTHOR: Berryhill URGENCY: No VERSION: March 22, 2012 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes SUBJECT: Entitlements: voluntary donations. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW Every person must have a license for the take of fish, birds, and mammals (section 3007 of the Fish and Game Code for hunting licenses, section 7145 of the Fish and Game Code for fishing licenses) unless that person is covered by an exception, which is a rarity. Two of the exceptions are for fishing by a landowner on private property and hunting on a free hunting day. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is phasing out their current paper license system and replacing it with an automated system called the Automated License Data System (ALDS). This process began about a year ago. Phase I of the ALDS roll-out ended in late 2011. Phase I consisted of siting kiosks for selling licenses and establishing an ALDS website for the public to use. DFG is now in the midst of Phase II of the roll-out which should take until about 2014. Phase II will focus on internal improvements to the system, adding new functionality, and other tasks. Fish and Game Code Sec. 1050.6 is clear that the names and addresses of those obtaining recreational fishing and hunting licenses are confidential and shall only be released in limited circumstances. - | | - PROPOSED LAW 1. This bill would require DFG to give all persons who purchase 1 a license or permit through ALDS an opportunity to release their contact information to eligible nonprofit conservation organizations. The bill would allow the department to use a "check-off box" or other means on the ALDS system. 2. A nonprofit seeking to receive contact information would need to request eligibility from DFG and, in addition, meet specified criteria. DFG would be required to transmit the contact information to each approved nonprofit. 3. DFG would be able to charge the nonprofits that receive information the direct costs of administering the transmittal of contact information. 4. The definition of eligible nonprofit organization includes the following criteria: A. The nonprofit is a 501(c)(3) organization. B. It is registered with the Attorney General. C. Its goals and objectives are directly related to the conservation and management of sportfish and game species. D. In each of the past 3 years, it entered into an agreement with the department to perform habitat or other wildlife conservation work or to raise funds on behalf of the department including the sale of hunting fundraising tags or providing hunting and fishing opportunities for the public. 5. A nonprofit that receives contact information is prohibited from distributing information with another entity. Violations of this provision would result in a five-year period of ineligibility from the further receipt of contact information. 6. The department would be authorized to use some of the surcharge proceeds placed on entitlements purchased from ALDS to pay a reasonable portion of the costs of complying with the provisions of this bill. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT The California Outdoor Heritage Alliance (COHA) supports the bill because it believes that greater conservation efforts will occur at the local level. Although not specified in the bill, COHA suggests that typical activities could include wetland restoration efforts, big game population surveying, controlled burning to improve habitat, re-forestation efforts, securing public access to land, facilitating conservation easements on 2 private land, and migratory bird banding. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION None received COMMENTS In conversation with the author, the first two amendments clarify his intent. 1. On page 2, line 7, the bill should stipulate that the conservation organizations that receive the person's contact information are organizations chosen by the individual. 2. On page 3, line 11, the provision should make it clear that the nonprofit attempting to obtain contact information must have provided the identified assistance to DFG in one of the three previous calendar years, not in each of the previous three calendar years. 3. A recent amendment limited the definition of eligible conservation groups to sportfishing groups, as opposed to all fishing groups. This change presumably would exclude commercial fishing nonprofits. The author should be open to the possibility of restoring the original language if the commercial fishing groups demonstrate sufficient activity through nonprofit organizations that help the department as provided in this bill. 4. Another recent amendment, as drafted by Legislative Counsel, continuously appropriates to DFG the funds contributed by nonprofits that offset the administrative costs of DFG. This proposed language may be considered again in Appropriations. 5. It may be the case that hunting and fishing groups are the predominant users of the provisions of this bill, but there are other nonprofits that provide services to the department. The bill is currently limited to organizations that perform habitat or other wildlife conservation work or raise funds on behalf of the department including the sale of hunting fundraising tags or provide hunting and fishing opportunities to the public. "Wildlife conservation work" is not a defined term and rather than exclude groups over semantics, it would be preferable for all nonprofits whose work advances the department's mission to be able to receive contact information. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS 3 AMENDMENT 1 Include the first two amendments in the Comments section. AMENDMENT 2 Consistent with the fifth comment, above, add at the end of page 3, line 16: "or provide assistance to the department that is consistent with the department's mission." SUPPORT California Outdoor Heritage Alliance California Waterfowl Association OPPOSITION None Received 4