BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1221
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 26, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared Huffman, Chair
SB 1221 (Lieu) - As Amended: March 26, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 22 - 15
SUBJECT : Hunting of bear and bobcats with dogs.
SUMMARY : This bill makes it unlawful to allow any dog to
pursue a bear or bobcat. Specifically, this bill :
1)Adds bear and bobcat to statutory prohibitions on use of dogs
to pursue mammals.
2)Adds pursuit of bear and bobcat to the list of situations when
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) can capture or dispatch an
uncontrolled dog.
3)Does not apply to the use of dogs to pursue bears or bobcats
by federal, state or local law enforcement officers when
carrying out official duties.
4)Repeals the section of Fish and Game Code that specifies when
and how many dogs can be used to hunt bear.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Defines 'Bear' as a game animal and 'Bobcat' as a nongame
animal.
2)Defines 'Pursue' to mean pursue, run or chase.
3)Defines 'Take' to mean hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill,
or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.
4)Makes it unlawful to take any bear with firearm, trap, or bow
and arrow without a tag and specifies no iron or steel-jawed
or metal jawed trap can be used to take a bear. Upon killing
the bear, the bear tag must be completed and a portion
attached to the bear and it must be countersigned as
described.
5)Allows dogs to be used to hunt bears under the following
SB 1221
Page 2
conditions:
a) 1 dog per hunter is permitted during open deer season.
b) Unlimited number of dogs permitted during open bear
season except during bear archery season or regular open
deer seasons.
6)Prohibits a person from allowing any dog to pursue:
a) Any big game mammal during closed season on that mammal,
b) Any fully protected, rare or endangered mammal at any
time,
c) Any mammal in a game refuge or ecological reserve if
hunting within that reserve is unlawful.
7)Authorizes employees of DFG to capture or dispatch any dog:
a) Not under reasonable control of the owner or handler
when that uncontrolled dog is pursuing a mammal per (4)
above.
b) Inflicting injury or immediately threatening to inflict
injury to any big game mammal during the closed season on
that mammal.
c) Inflicting injury or immediately threatening to inflict
injury to any fully protected, rare or endangered mammal at
any time.
d) Inflicting injury or immediately threatening to inflict
injury to any mammal in a game refuge or ecological reserve
if hunting in that reserve is unlawful.
8)States that hunters must maintain physical control over dogs.
9)Authorizes the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to regulate the
taking or possession of birds, mammals, fish, amphibian, and
reptiles; to determine open and closed seasons, bag limits,
the manner and means of taking, and restrictions based on sex,
maturity or other physical distinction. Requires the FGC to
consider populations, habitat, food supplies, the welfare of
individual animals, and other pertinent facts and testimony
when adopting regulations.
10)Regulations adopted by the FGC specify numbers and seasons
for bear hunting and for take of bobcats. For example, the
legal limit for bear hunting is one adult bear per season,
bear cubs and females accompanied by cubs may not be taken,
and the bear season opens the day the deer season opens and
continues through December or until 1700 bears have been
SB 1221
Page 3
taken, whichever occurs first. Regulations adopted by the FGC
also place criteria and restrictions on the use of dogs for
hunting and during training. For example, prohibits use of
dogs to pursue mammals or for training in certain zones during
certain seasons, allows for training of dogs on bears, deer
and bobcats with appropriate tags during specified seasons,
and prohibits use of GPS or tree switches on dogs used in
hunting. For further detail see California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Section 265.
11)Under the Penal Code:
a) Makes any person who inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon
any living animal guilty of a crime punishable as a felony.
However, the Penal Code also specifies that laws against
animal cruelty shall not be construed as interfering with
any game laws of the state;
b) Prohibits placing a dog and bear in a situation where
fighting between the 2 may occur;
c) Makes any person who willfully abandons an animal guilty
of a misdemeanor.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to Senate Appropriations Committee:
One-time costs of $18,000 from the Fish and Game Preservation
Fund (special fund) beginning in 2013 for changes to Fish and
Game regulations; uncertain revenue losses, from negligible to a
$265,000 annually but likely approximately $130,000, starting in
2013 from Fish and Game Preservation Fund (special fund), mostly
to the Big Game Account, from reduced bear and bobcat tag sales.
COMMENTS :
Hounding:
Hunting bears and bobcats in California with dogs predates the
formation of DFG in the 1870s and has been legal in California
since game laws were formally established shortly thereafter.
The current practice consists of fitting hunting dogs with
equipment such as radio collars that allow the hunter to monitor
and locate the dogs' movement remotely. Packs of dogs are
released to chase bears and bobcats. The chase can be short or
last for hours. In 2 separate studies, scientists noted the
average chase length of 3.2 hours with some chases lasting as
long as 12 hours and covering 18 miles. Once hunters hear that
the dogs have treed an animal, they catch up, assess the treed
animal, and decide whether to leave it or kill it.
SB 1221
Page 4
This legislation only affects the use of dogs to hunt for bear
and bobcat. Dog hunters would still be able to use dogs to hunt
other fur-bearing mammals including raccoons, possum, boars and
squirrels as well as be used by bird hunters; bears and bobcats
could still be hunted without the use of dogs.
As noted above, the Fish and Game Code contains certain
restrictions on the use of dogs to hunt or pursue game. But
since dogs are domestic animals, the welfare of dogs is
protected under Penal Code.
Types of hounding practices and affected industries: (excluding
retrievers)
Under the Fish and Game Code and Regulations, dogs are currently
allowed to be used (with some restrictions) in the take of
fur-bearing mammals including raccoon, beaver, badger, and
muskrat; mammals including bears, deer, wild pigs, rabbits, and
tree squirrels; and nongame mammals defined as all mammals
occurring naturally in California which are not game mammals,
fully protected mammals, or fur-bearing mammals.
Dogs may also be used in the take of depredating mammals by
federal and county animal damage control officers or by
permittees authorized under a depredation permit issued by the
department.
Industries affected by this legislation include not only those
that are involved in the sport of hunting but those that use
dogs for protection of property or resources. Examples include
the timber, agriculture, livestock, and bee keeping industries.
Bear:
DFG monitors the black bear population in accordance with the
1998 Black Bear Management Plan. Annual harvest quotas,
currently set at 1700, are based on maintaining a healthy
population for species preservation and recreation. The accuracy
of the department's estimate of the bear population has been a
matter of dispute and the department's current method of
estimation acknowledges it could be off by as much as 27% or a
range of +/- 7,000 bears on average. For example, using legal
harvest data from 2010, the black bear population in California
was estimated to be 26,500 with a range of from 18,500 to
SB 1221
Page 5
33,000.
From 2008 - 2010, the number of lawfully taken bears has
decreased while the percentage of bears taken with dogs has
remained relatively stable ~ 45%:
2010: 24, 859 bear tags issued; 1,503 total bears taken; 676
bears (45 %) taken using dogs;
2009: 24,805 bear tags issued; 1,700 total bears taken; 782
bears (46 %) taken using dogs;
2008: 25,631 bear tags issued; 2,028 total bears taken; 860
(43.9 %) taken using dogs.
Explanations for the decline in annual take include a declining
population and/or inclement weather that prohibited hunters from
accessing bear habitat.
32 states allow bear hunting, with18 states allowing for the
hunting of bears with dogs and 14 states (including Colorado,
Oregon, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming) prohibiting the use of
dogs. Colorado, Oregon and Washington have seen a 15%, 9%, and
7% respective increase in the number of bear tags sold while
maintaining or increasing the annual number of bears killed
since the ban on usage of dogs for hunting bear. One proposed
rationale for this increase in bear tag sales is that more
hunters are interested in a "fair chase" sport and will engage
in the sport of hunting for bear when all hunters have an equal
chance of killing a bear (i.e. when those who hunt with dogs do
not have an increased advantage). An alternate rationale is that
the state wildlife departments have had to incentivize the sale
of bear tags, either through lower prices or game tag 'bundles'
to prevent the drop in the sale of bear tags.
Bobcat:
Bobcats are considered 'nongame' by DFG. Since 1979, the bobcat
population in California has been annually estimated to be about
70,000 and the US Fish and Wildlife Services (agency with
responsibility for scientific monitoring) set the annual harvest
quota at 14,400 animals. The majority of bobcats are hunted for
the fur trade. Since 2000, the annual take has ranged from 580
to 1,262 animals with the majority of those taken by commercial
trappers, and less than 20% have been taken with dogs. In the
2010 - 2011 season, 4,500 bobcat tags were issued, 1,195 total
animals were taken with 893 (75 %) by commercial trappers, 238
SB 1221
Page 6
(20 %) by sport hunters, and 64 (5 %) by wildlife services. In
the same season, 18% of lawfully taken bobcats were taken with
dogs.
DFG:
Wardens submit weekly activity and incident reports. 550
non-nuisance incidents involving bears, bobcats and/or dogs were
reported within the last 5 years. Of those, 192 or 35 % involved
dogs in some fashion. Examples of incident reports involving
bears include poaching, abandoned bear carcasses with paws and
gall bladder removed, mutilation of cubs and other actions that
would be deemed animal cruelty if committed on domestic animals;
many of the incidents involving dogs were due to dogs that were
out of control. Specific dog related violations included
trespassing; chasing and killing of wildlife, livestock, and
domestic animals by free roaming dogs; abandoned/out of control
hunting dogs; and hounding out of season.
The DFG Law Enforcement Division publically publishes citation
data that indicates bear violations are a small proportion of
all hunting violations (< 1%). This data is comprised of only
those incidents where a citation was issued; i.e. where there
was an individual to cite and/or where the warden issued a
citation vs. a warning. For example, citations do not include
incident reports where bear parts that were illegally taken were
found but the hunter was not; or an incident report of an
abandoned/free roaming/wildlife chasing dog that cannot be
traced to an owner. There is no DFG data available for citations
related to either bobcat or hunting dog violations.
Each year, the FGC must update the Draft Environmental Document
(DED), a CEQA type document assessing the effect of the current
and proposed, if any, regulations on the upcoming bear hunting
season. The 2000 DED on Bear Hunting assessed the reinstatement
of black bear hunting after bear hunting was banned in 1998.
This document was the most recent one to assess the use of dogs
in hunting bears and chase related effects. Specifically, this
2000 DED stated the following:
The department is unaware of any biological evidence to
indicate that the regulated use of dogs to assist in
hunting bears has had, or will be likely to have, a
significant negative effect on the State's bear resource?as
indicated by data currently collected regarding population
SB 1221
Page 7
parameters? Ýwhere] the resulting level of hunting take,
not the method of take, is the factor determining the
effect on the bear population.
Being pursued by dogs may cause the animal to suffer
anxiety, fear, and stress.
Stress resulting from the Ýuse of dogs] may be different
from naturally occurring stress because of the possibility
of pursuit by multiple dogs.
Animals may experience anxiety and fear in response to
naturally occurring stimuli. Hunt-related pursuit by dogs
may subject the individual bear to anxieties or fears that
are qualitatively different from naturally occurring
anxieties and fears?In this sense, pursuit may be viewed as
having an adverse effect on individual animal welfare.
There is little scientific literature pertaining to the
effects of using dogs to chase bears. However, individual
bears Ýin 3 studies] did not show any long-term
physiological effects as determined by their condition
after denning and none of the family groups that were
pursued (in a study in Massachusetts) separated after being
chased.
The conclusion was that "the activity of sport hunting
black bears will result in the death of individual bears,
the regulated removal of individual animals from a large
and healthy statewide population is not expected to
significantly reduce the bear population size? no
significant negative effects, individually or cumulatively,
on black bears as a species are expected to result from
Ýhunting of black bears]."
A report by a DFG Patrol Captain Klein provided evidence of a
connection between the use of dogs and bear poaching through a
1981 investigation into a bear poaching ring in which over 100
houndsmen were involved. However, as the report did not look at
non-hounding hunters or houndsmen not involved in poaching, it
is difficult to determine whether there is a scientifically
valid statistical correlation between hounding and bear poaching
based on available data and studies.
Violations of current laws and regulations:
SB 1221
Page 8
The current practice of hunting bears and bobcats with dogs
violates the following laws 1) a hunter must maintain physical
control over their dog; 2) a person must not knowingly place a
dog in a situation to fight with another animal, specifically
including bears; and 3) the FGC regulation that females and bear
cubs may not be taken, which by definition, includes pursuit.
Additionally, because the dogs are often out of sight of the
hunter, there is the potential for violations of several other
laws including 1) trespassing on private property; 2) pursuit of
a big game mammal during the closed season on such mammal; 3)
pursuit of a fully protected, rare, or endangered mammal; and 4)
pursuit of any mammal in a game refuge or ecological preserve if
hunting within that refuge or preserve is unlawful.
Previous similar legislation:
SB 67 (Petris), 1993 would have required DFG to conduct a field
study to determine the size and health of the black bear
population in California and would have placed a moratorium on
using dogs to hunt, pursue, or take black bears until the field
study was completed. This bill failed passage in the Senate
Natural Resources and Water Committee.
AB 342 (Koretz), 2003 was very similar to the current SB 1221 in
that it, among other provisions, would have prohibited allowing
or training a dog to take any bear or bobcat for hunting
purposes; authorized employees of DFG to capture any
uncontrolled dog when that dog was taking a bear or bobcat;
authorized employees of DFG to capture or dispatch any dog that
was inflicting injury or immediately threatening to inflict
injury on any bear or bobcat; and made it unlawful to train any
dog to take any bear or bobcat for hunting purposes. This bill
failed passage in the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife
Committee.
Support and Opposition Summary:
This bill is a highly contentious, emotional issue with both
support and opposition very passionate about the practice.
Fundamentally, support and opposition approach the issue from
two very different perspectives.
The primary support argument is that this is a bill addressing
SB 1221
Page 9
animal welfare and that sending dogs out to hunt puts them in
imminent danger and subject to harm. Additionally, the bears and
bobcats can be injured either during the chase or by the dogs if
captured. Thus, hunting bear and bobcats with dogs is animal
cruelty.
The primary opposition argument is that using dogs to hunt is a
tradition and a way of life. The dogs are bred and trained to
pursue bears and bobcats, and many families spend their leisure
time with the dogs in the wilderness. Thus, hunting bear and
bobcats with dogs is a well-loved and cherished sport.
Specific arguments in support: The author states "The practice
of hunting bears and bobcats with hounds is unsporting and
inhumane? Some liken this practice to shooting a bear in a cage?
California has a long history of protecting its resources and
protecting wildlife and animal welfare. The continued use of
hound hunting runs counter to California's reputation as a
humane state." Other key arguments of the supporters of this
bill include:
1)Use of dogs to hunt bears is not necessary as a wildlife
population management tool (note: the bill does not prohibit
hunting of bears, only hunting with dogs). There is no
evidence to support the argument there would be uncontrolled
population growth without human intervention, and no evidence
to support hounding as a necessary or effective hunting method
to control bear populations. The traditional approach of
management through hunting is outdated and inconsistent with
predation theory. Human - bear interactions are usually caused
by garbage, etc. and are not affected by hunting practices.
Hunting does not alter depredation and does not address human
- wildlife conflicts.
2)Hunting bears and bobcats with dogs is inhumane. Hounding
places undue stress on target and non-target animals. Multiple
studies demonstrate stress on wildlife in presence of dogs.
Dogs often chase and kill other non-target animals - wildlife,
farm animals, and pets.
3)Dogs used for hounding are subject to inhumane conditions.
There are reports from animal control officers of poor
husbandry/housing of hunting dogs; dogs getting lost or
abandoned during or after a hunt; running dogs getting hit by
cars as chase or wanderings take them across roads. Anecdotes
SB 1221
Page 10
and reports from veterinarians and animal control officers
provide evidence of injuries to hunting dogs that require
moderate to intensive veterinary care. Lastly, many abandoned
hunting dogs end up in animal shelters, unclaimed and often
unadoptable.
4)This bill raises policy issues. First, supporters say that
since Fish and Game Code specifies when and how many dogs can
be used to hunt bear, the practices can only be changed
through legislative action. Secondly, dogs are often out of
eyesight of the hunter and the chase/hunt can move out of a
hunting permissible region onto private or public lands, thus
violating current law. Lastly, while, according to the Fish
and Game Code, the FGC must among other issues, consider
animal welfare when making regulations, the FGC has
repeatedly, publically cited a lack of purview to consider
concerns related to animal welfare and animal cruelty.
5)Bear and bobcat hunting contribute little to the overall
economy. Money from hunters who use dogs represents only a
fraction of the total amount of money contributed by hunters
to the state economy. Additionally, California may see an
increase in the number of bear hunters, like that seen in CO,
OR, and WY.
6)Generally, supporters see the use of dogs as inhumane,
'unsporting', and a practice that deviates from the concept of
fair chase. This position is held by both non-hunters and some
hunters. A prohibition on hunting with dogs may lead to
reductions in poaching of black bears as many poachers are
known to use dogs in the hunt. And, "SB 1221 is an accurate
reflection of evolving values concerning wildlife, humane
treatment of animals and fair chase ethics."
Specific arguments in opposition:
1)Use of dogs to hunt bears is a necessary wildlife population
management tool (note: the bill does not prohibit hunting of
bears, only hunting with dogs). Hounding is an efficient and
cost effective management tool for population control and if
hounding for bears is banned, the bear population will become
out of control and threaten public safety. Additionally, SB
1221 will limit ranchers and timber owners' ability to manage
bear populations and protect their livestock, bees or timber.
Lastly, bears kill fawns thus SB 1221 will lead to more bears
SB 1221
Page 11
and fewer deer.
2)Hunting bears and bobcats with dogs is humane as it allows for
a catch and release form of hunting. Hunters are able to
assess the treed animal and can determine sex, age, nursing
sow, etc. before taking the animal. There is no evidence of
stress of the chase in the target animals. Additionally, if
the kill is made, it is done so at close range thus ensuring
an accurate and fatal shot.
3)The dogs used in hounding are valuable assets to the hunters.
They are trained and treated as athletes and receive the best
food and veterinary care available.
4)This bill raises policy issues. First, SB 1221 circumvents the
California Environmental Quality Act and this issue should be
handled by the scientific and public process through the Fish
and Game Commission. Secondly, this bill sets the precedent
for outlawing all hunting with dogs.
5)SB 1221 will have economic ramifications to the state and to
local communities. This bill will drastically cut into the
revenue of DFG and place the department in a financial
shortfall. Based on an estimated 5,000 bear tags sold to
hunters using dogs, $200,000 could be lost annually.
Additionally, hound hunters bring significant economic
investment to communities.
6)In general, opposition states that hounding is a natural,
traditional form of hunting and that ethical hunters comply
with the regulations where it is just a few 'bad apples' that
give hounding a bad name. Instilling a ban on this form of
hunting is a presumption of guilt. Additionally, hunting with
dogs is not about the kill, but about the chase. "We just like
to run our dogs".
Issues and questions for the Committee to consider:
The 2000 DED from DFG concluded that "the activity of sport
hunting black bears will result in the death of individual
bears, the regulated removal of individual animals from a large
and healthy statewide population is not expected to
significantly reduce the bear population size? no significant
negative effects, individually or cumulatively, on black bears
as a species are expected to result from Ýhunting of black
SB 1221
Page 12
bears]." However, this analysis focused on the population level
effects of hunting with dogs and not on the effects of hounding
on individual animal welfare. And, while the document stated
that there was no "biological evidence to indicate that the
regulated use of dogs to assist in hunting bears has had, or
will be likely to have, a significant negative effect", a
thorough review of the laws and regulations into the use of dogs
to assist in hunting bears retrieved that the only regulations
pertain to the number (1 vs. unlimited) and timing (hunting and
training seasons) of the use of dogs for hunting with no
regulations pertaining to how the dogs are used to assist in the
hunt. Thus, hounding may be considered to be only minimally
regulated without any regulations pertaining to animal welfare.
While there have been numerous law enforcement incident reports
involving bears and hounding, the available information on
hounding and the effects of hounding is limited and often
anecdotal. Are these reported incidents exceptions involving a
few 'bad apples' or is this a more systemic problem?
Bear poaching is a clear and definite problem in California.
There is evidence supporting a connection between hounding and
bear poaching, but the extent of the correlation is not able to
be quantified by currently available data.
The issue of animal welfare: Other states that have publically
discussed the issue of hounding mention that the objection to
hounding is based on ethics and animal welfare and not based on
population management. What is the effect of hounding on the
individual animal? How big of a problem does hounding need to be
to warrant intervention, particularly given the animal
welfare/humane treatment issues involved? What is the
'threshold' of incidents that would make this practice
significant enough to stop? Further, is the concept of 'Catch
and Release' humane? Opponents of this bill argue that using
dogs to hunt bears is similar to "catch and release" in fishing
thus allowing for the sport of the chase without making the
kill. However, it can also be argued that a humane death
involves non-stressful events leading up to death and therefore
the 'chase' is one of the inhumane parts of the process. The
opponents also state that the kill associated with hounding is
more humane as the hunter usually has a clean shot and the
animal dies immediately. But this is not always the outcome;
anecdotal stories relay the experience of the animal falling
from the tree alive to be injured or to attack the hunter and/or
SB 1221
Page 13
dogs or of dogs catching and fighting with the bear on the
ground. Finally, what is the definition of 'fair chase'? The
concept of fair chase may be clear, but different people have
different definitions.
Finally, where does the jurisdiction of this issue lie - with
the Legislature or the Fish and Game Commission? The Fish and
Game Code specifically states the number of dogs that can be
used at certain times for hunting bear. Thus, some legislative
action would be needed if the practice were to be altered.
However, the FGC was established to address the management and
wise use of California's fish and wildlife resources through
their establishment of regulations relating to take seasons, bag
limits, and methods of take based on the scientific expertise of
DFG, the best interest of the resource, while reflecting the
wishes of the people. Thus, the FGC is the body that is designed
to make regulations.
Suggested Committee Staff Amendments:
Committee Staff suggests that this bill should include the
following exceptions, which will be narrowly defined, to the ban
on the use of dogs to pursue bear and bobcat:
1) To aid in scientific research on bears and bobcats;
2) As a last resort under a DFG issued depredation permit
for the depredation done by a bear or bobcat; and
3) For the use of dogs for hazing of bears and bobcats away
from the immediate vicinity of livestock.
Additionally, recognizing the historical jurisdiction of the FGC
in regulating the use of dogs for hunting bears and bobcats, if
the Committee believes the FGC should have the authority to
evaluate the practice and regulations pursuant to the
evaluation, the committee may wish to consider the following
additional amendments:
Authorize the FGC to review the effects of the use of dogs to
pursue bears and bobcats;
Authorize the FGC to establish regulations on the use of dogs
to pursue bears and bobcats if such use meets strict standards
and has no negative effects;
Authorize DFG to create a hound tag for use of dogs in hound
hunting enabling greater enforcement and regulation of the
practice and allow for further monitoring and study of the
effects of the practice;
SB 1221
Page 14
Authorize the FGC to create regulations for the hound tag; and
Authorize DFG to set a fee to recover administrative and
implementation costs to DFG and the FGC for the hound tag.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Humane Society of the United States (Sponsor)
Action for Animals
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Rescue Team, Inc.
ASPCA
Bear League
Best Friends Animal Society
Big Wildlife
Born Free USA
Buckhorn Ranch
Environmental Protection Information Center
Fund for Animals Wildlife Center
Haven Humane Society
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Assoc.
In Defense of Animals
Injured and Orphaned Wildlife
Kern-Waweah Chapter, Sierra Club
Klamath Forest Alliance
Lake Tahoe Humane Society
Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care, Inc.
Last Chance for Animals
League of Humane Voters, California Chapter
Lions Tigers & Bears Big Cat Sanctuary and Rescue
Los Padres ForestWatch
Marin County Board of Supervisors
Marin Humane Society
Mountain Lion Foundation
Ohlone Humane Society
Ojai Wildlife League
Paw Pac
Paw Project
Project Coyote
Public Interest Coalition
SB 1221
Page 15
Reno Sparks Indian Colony
Sacramento SPCA
San Diego Animal Advocates
San Francisco SPCA
Santa Clara County Activists for Animals
Santa Cruz SPCA
Sierra Club California
Sierra Wildlife Coalition
Social Compassion in Legislation
SPCA Los Angeles
State Humane Association of California
Wildcare
Wildlife Rehabilitation and Release
Yolo County SPCA
Over a thousand individuals
Opposition
American Herding Breed Association
Bob Williams, Tehama County Supervisor
California Cattlemen's Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Federation of Dog Clubs
California Houndsmen for Conservation
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
California Resources Business Alliance
California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc
California Sportsman's Lobby
California State Beekeepers Association
California Waterfowl Association
Central California Sporting Dog Association
Central Coast Forest Association
County of Humboldt, Board of Supervisors
County of Mendocino, Board of Supervisors
County of Plumas, Board of Supervisors
County of Siskiyou, Board of Supervisors
County of Siskiyou, Department of Agriculture
County of Sutter, Board of Supervisors
County of Yuba
Fresno County Sportsmen's Club
Glenn County Farm Bureau
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
Humboldt County Farm Bureau
Humboldt-Del Norte Cattlemen's Association
Klamath Alliance for Resources and Envt.
SB 1221
Page 16
Lower Sherman Island Duck Hunters Assoc.
Mendocino County Farm Bureau
Modoc County Fish, Game & Rec. Commission
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California
Safari Club International
Safari Press, Inc.
Scott Valley Veterinary Clinic
Shasta County Board of Supervisors
Shasta County Farm Bureau
Siskiyou County Fish and Game Commission
Tehama County Farm Bureau
The California Sportsman's Lobby, Inc.
Tri County Houndsmen
Trinity County Supervisors: Wendy Otto, District 5; Judy
Pflueger, District 1
Tule River Houndsmen
Over a thousand individuals
Analysis Prepared by : Mandy Arens / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096