BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1221
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1221 (Lieu)
As Amended August 20, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :22 - 15
WATER, PARKS, & WILDLIFE 8 - 4 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Blumenfield, |Ayes:|Gatto, Blumenfield, |
| |Campos, Fong, Gatto, | |Bradford, |
| |Hueso, Lara, Yamada | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, |
| | | |Hill, Cedillo, Mitchell, |
| | | |Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Halderman, Bill |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| |Berryhill, | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| |Beth Gaines, Jones | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : This bill prohibits the use of dogs to pursue bears
and bobcats except as permitted by a depredation permit or
scientific research permit issued by the Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) or where the pursuit occurs by a dog that is guarding
crops or livestock. For remaining hounding activities, the bill
would allow, but not require, the California Fish and Game
Commission (FGC) to establish a hound tag program.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Allows a hunter with a bear tag to use an unlimited number of
dogs to pursue a bear during open bear season, once deer
season closes. During deer season dogs are limited to 1 per
hunter.
2)Allows a hunter with a bobcat tag to use dogs to pursue
bobcat, which is considered a nongame species.
3)Prohibits a person from allowing any dog to pursue any big
game mammal during closed season on that mammal, any fully
protected, rare or endangered mammal at any time, any mammal
SB 1221
Page 2
in a game refuge or ecological reserve if hunting within that
reserve is unlawful and authorizes employees of DFG to capture
or dispatch (meaning kill) any uncontrolled dog that is
inflicting injury or immediately threatening to inflict injury
in violation of these prohibitions.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to Assembly Appropriations Committee,
this bill could result in potential lost revenues of an unknown
amount, likely in the range of $150,000 annually from decreased
bear tag sales (special fund) and one-time costs of
approximately $25,000 to DFG and the FGC to revise hunting
regulations in keeping with this bill (special fund).
The staff analysis also advises there could be potential costs
of an unknown amount, likely in the tens of thousands of
dollars, to FGC to develop and implement a hound tag program
(special funds) and potential costs of an unknown amount, likely
in the tens of thousands of dollars, to DFG issue depredation or
research permits that allow the use of dogs to pursue bears or
bobcats (special funds). However, both of these costs should be
fully covered by revenues.
COMMENTS : The current practice of using dogs to hunt bear and
bobcat consists of setting packs of hounds loose that are
specially bred and trained to chase after a fleeing animal while
baying and barking to provide its location. Typically, the dogs
are fitted with radio collars so that when they are no longer
within the field of vision or hearing of the hunters they can be
located remotely. An animal that is being chased may run for a
short distance or cover many miles as it attempts to escape. In
2 separate studies, scientists noted an average chase length of
3.2 hours with some chases lasting as long as 12 hours and
covering 18 miles. If the dogs tree the animal during the
chase, the hunter or hunters are then able to catch up and shoot
it out of the tree or they can abandon it.
The use of dogs to hunt bear and bobcat is a recreational
pursuit and not a DFG population management tool for either
bears or bobcats. Of the 32 states that allow bear hunting, 18
permit the use of dogs and 14 (including Colorado, Oregon,
Montana, Washington, and Wyoming) expressly prohibit it.
Supporters argue that the use of hounds during the hunting of
bears and bobcats is unnecessary and cruel because the hounds
can attack the bear or bobcat or it may turn upon the hounds,
SB 1221
Page 3
resulting in potential injury to both. Supporters also state
that the failure of hound hunters to have physical control over
their dogs, which are sometimes many miles away, puts nontarget
species, including threatened and endangered species, at
collateral risk for injury and disease from exposure to dogs,
their urine and feces. Supporters state that the practice of
hunting bears and bobcats with hounds is unsporting, inhumane,
and inconsistent with protecting animal welfare, wildlife and
natural resources.
Opponents of this bill argue that using their dogs to pursue
bears and bobcats is a valued tradition and a way of life for
them and that their dogs are prized athletes that are well
trained and treated. They also assert that hounding helps with
bear and bobcat population management, public safety, and
protection of property, livestock, and apiaries. Opponents
argue that the use of dogs is more humane that other types of
hunting as it allows for catch and release of animals.
Opponents add that the hounding restrictions in this bill will
result in lost revenues to DFG and local economies.
This legislation does not ban bear or bobcat hunting, only the
use of dogs when hunting bear and bobcat. In addition, the use
of dogs to hunt other fur-bearing mammals including raccoons,
possum, boars and squirrels would remain unaffected as would the
use of dogs for bird hunting. Consistent with four of the five
amendments that were discussed and approved in the Assembly
Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee (AWPWC), this bill was
amended in the Assembly Appropriations Committee (AAC) to allow
the use of hounds to carry out specified depredation permits for
bear or bobcat; to allow the use of hounds in support of
scientific research on the sustainability and survival of bear
or bobcat populations and healthy ecosystems; to exempt dogs
that are guarding or protecting their owner's livestock or
crops; and to allow, but not require, the FGC to establish a
hound tag program. Notably, the AAC excluded the fifth
AWPWC-approved provision that would allow the FGC, on a 4/5
vote, and subject to specific requirements, to revisit the ban.
See the AWPWC analysis for more detailed information.
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
SB 1221
Page 4
FN:
0005156