BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    ”



                                                                  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? ›where] 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 ›use 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 ›in 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 
               ›hunting 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 ›hunting 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