BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1213
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 2, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Anthony Rendon, Chair
AB 1213 (Bloom) - As Amended: March 19, 2013
SUBJECT : Bobcats
SUMMARY : Adds bobcats to the list of fur-bearing mammals, and
prohibits the trapping or selling of bobcats, or the possession
or transportation of bobcats taken in violation of California
law. Specifically, this bill :
1)Adds bobcats to the list of fur-bearing mammals.
2)Makes it unlawful to trap or attempt to trap any bobcat, or to
sell or export any bobcat or part thereof taken in California,
or to receive, transport, or possess any bobcat or part
thereof taken in violation of the Fish and Game Code or
regulations adopted pursuant to the code.
3)Exempts from the above prohibition the taking of any bobcat by
an employee of the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW)
acting in an official capacity or by the holder of a
scientific or propagation permit.
4)Further exempts from the above prohibition any bobcat or part
or product thereof lawfully possessed prior to January 1,
2014, and allows for the lawful taking of bobcats found to be
injuring crops or property pursuant to a depredation permit.
5)States legislative findings and declarations regarding
bobcats, their role in the ecosystem, the value of wildlife to
California's economy, and the rise in demand in foreign
markets for bobcat pelts that is driving an increase in the
number of bobcats trapped for commercial purposes in the
state.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that all mammals occurring naturally in California
that are not game mammals, fully protected mammals, or
fur-bearing mammals, are classified as nongame mammals.
Prohibits the take or possession of nongame mammals except as
provided in the Fish and Game Code or regulations adopted by
AB 1213
Page 2
the Fish and Game Commission (FGC).
2)Classifies bobcats as nongame mammals, and prohibits the
taking of a bobcat without first procuring either a trapping
license or a hunting license and bobcat hunting tags. Allows
bobcats taken under a trapping license to be taken statewide
from November 24th through January 31st without any limit as
to number. Limits the number of bobcats that may be taken
under a hunting license and bobcat hunting tags statewide to 5
bobcats per season, with the season lasting from October 15th
through February 28th.
3)Prohibits pursuit of bobcats with dogs except pursuant to a
depredation permit, for scientific research, or to protect
livestock or crops.
4)Requires pelts of bobcats to be affixed with tags, and
prohibits the sale or transport of bobcat pelts without a
shipping tag.
5)Defines fur-bearing mammals to include pine marten, fisher,
mink, river otter, gray fox, red fox, kit fox, raccoon,
beaver, badger, and muskrat. Provides that fur-bearing
mammals may only be taken with a trap, firearm, bow and arrow,
poison under a permit from DFW, or with use of dogs.
6)By regulation, prohibits fisher, marten, river otter, desert
kit fox, and red fox from being taken at any time. Allows
badgers and gray fox to be taken statewide from November 24
through February 29, and allows muskrat and mink to be taken
from November 16th through March 31st. Take of beavers is
allowed in certain counties but prohibited in others. Seasons
and methods of take allowed for raccoons also differs by
region.
7)Requires everyone who traps fur-bearing mammals or nongame
mammals or sells raw furs of those mammals to obtain a
trapping license, with exceptions for take of mammals that are
injuring crops or property.
8)Prohibits the use of body gripping traps to trap fur-bearing
or nongame mammals. Also prohibits the take of fur-bearing
mammals with saw-toothed or spiked jaw traps.
9)FGC regulations impose additional requirements on persons
AB 1213
Page 3
using non-body gripping traps, including the requirement to
obtain a trapping registration number from DFW for each trap.
Each mammal that is legally trapped must be immediately killed
(shot) or released, and all traps are required to be visited
at least once daily. Placement of traps within 150 yards of
residential structures is prohibited without the consent of
the landowner. Violations of trapping requirements are
punishable by a $300 to $2,000 fine and/or one year in county
jail. All holders of trapping licenses are required to file
annual trapping reports with DFG, with the penalty for failure
to report being potential license suspension.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : The bobcat, (Lynx rufus) is a North American mammal
of the cat family Felidae. The bobcat is native throughout
California and typically inhabits brushy stages of deciduous and
conifer forests or chaparral, often in rocky, brushy terrain
adjacent to patches of riparian habitat and denser forests.
They are carnivorous and feed primarily on rabbits, other
rodents, small mammals and birds, but also eat vegetation such
as fruits and grasses. Bobcats usually breed in the winter,
with litters of 1-6 kittens born in the Spring. The bobcat gets
its common name from its short bobbed tail.
The author has introduced this bill in response to an increase
in commercial trapping of bobcats in California, which is
believed to be driven by a significant rise in the demand and
wholesale prices being paid for bobcat pelts in China and other
foreign countries. The number of bobcats trapped and killed in
the 2011-12 season rose by nearly 51% over the previous season,
and the number of trappers reporting bobcats trapped more than
doubled over that same time period. Recent news reports quoting
trappers indicate that the price paid for bobcat pelts on the
international market increased from an average of $78 per pelt
in 2009 to an average of $700 per pelt in 2011. While the
highest demand is coming from China, markets for bobcat pelts
have also increased in Russia and Greece. According to some
trappers, bobcat pelts can sell for as high as $1,700 per pelt
in some cases.
In the 2011-2012 season, the most recent season for which data
is available, 1,813 bobcats were killed in California by
trappers and hunters. Of these, 1,499 were taken by trappers
and only 255 by hunters. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's
AB 1213
Page 4
Wildlife Services also killed 59.
Estimated Annual Take of Bobcats in California
------------------------------------------------------
| | 2009-2010 | 2010-2011 | 2011-12 |
|----------------+------------+------------+-----------|
|Total # of Cats | 762 | 1,195 | 1,813 |
|Taken | | | |
|----------------+------------+------------+-----------|
|By Trappers | 457 | 893 | 1,299 |
|----------------+------------+------------+-----------|
|By Hunters | 251 | 238 | 255 |
|----------------+------------+------------+-----------|
|By Wildlife | 54 | 64 | 59 |
|Services | | | |
|----------------+------------+------------+-----------|
|# of trappers | 45 | 45 | 128 |
|reporting | | | |
|----------------+------------+------------+-----------|
|Increase in | ----- | 57% |51% |
|take % | | | |
------------------------------------------------------
*Data from Department of Fish and Wildlife
The impact of this increase in trapping on bobcat populations in
the state is unknown since the state lacks recent population
estimates for bobcats. The Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) restricts
trade in endangered species, but also establishes procedures to
monitor trade of other species that might be faced with
endangerment in the future. The bobcat is not endangered but is
monitored under CITES. In 1973 the U.S. became a party to
CITES. In 1979, the pre-breeding estimate of adult bobcats in
California was around 72,000. At that time an annual harvest
quota of 14,400 animals was approved. DFW indicates it has been
monitoring bobcat harvests since 1982. DFW in its most recent
annual harvest assessment (filed in May 2012) states that since
the total bobcat take in recent years has been substantially
less than 20% of the above quota, it is not in danger of
over-harvest. However, as noted above, that population estimate
and harvest quota was established over 30 years ago. The
reliability of the population estimate was challenged in court
in 1982, leading to a temporary court ordered ban on exports of
bobcat pelts until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could come
up with more reliable population estimates. That ban was later
AB 1213
Page 5
voided due to other intervening changes in the law but the
population estimates have not been subsequently updated or
verified.
The author of this bill indicates he first became aware of the
issue when commercial trappers killed numerous bobcats just
outside the Joshua Tree National Park boundaries, where some
traps were being illegally set on private lands bordering the
park. Local residents and tourists who had observed,
photographed, and appreciated the bobcats in the area for many
years strenuously objected to the killings. Joshua Tree
National Park is a 640,000 acre park in the desert region of
southern California. Bobcats are protected inside the park
boundaries, as are other native wildlife species. The most
recent survey of bobcats in the park was conducted in 1979.
The counties with the highest numbers of bobcats killed in
California in 2011-12 were Siskiyou County (246) and San
Bernardino County (237), where Joshua Tree National Park is
located, followed by Kern County (206) and Modoc County (205).
From a regional standpoint, the northeast region of the state
had the highest total take of bobcats in 2011-12 with over 500.
DFW in its annual harvest report has stated that if the
commercial harvest in the northeast region increases to over 425
for more than two consecutive seasons, additional management
action should be taken to determine the effects on the
population in that region. Southern California as a region
reported the second highest take in 2011-12 at 365. However,
perhaps even more significant is the dramatic increase in take
which has occurred in the southern California region in just the
last couple years, where the take increased by 861% between 2010
and 2012, according to DFW data.
DFW harvest data shows average prices for bobcat pelts have
fluctuated from year to year since the 1980s. Fur dealers
stopped providing average bobcat pelt prices to DFW in 2009.
However, if the average price of $700 reportedly paid for bobcat
pelts in 2011-12 is accurate, it is substantially higher than
for any other prior year. The previous all-time high was
$194.50 reported in 2005-06.
Similar Legislation : SB 380 (Hayden) in 1993 proposed to ban
both hunting and trapping of bobcats in California but did not
pass. SB 1221 (Lieu), Chapter 595, Statutes of 2012, prohibited
the use of dogs to hunt bobcats, with specified exceptions.
AB 1213
Page 6
Note: This bill would prohibit commercial trapping of bobcats
but does not affect state rules applicable to the hunting of
bobcats, or to the authorized take of bobcats injuring crops or
property, both of which would continue to be allowed pursuant to
current law.
Support Arguments : Supporters assert this bill will help bring
state law into conformance with modern wildlife management
practices, and that the increase in trapping, which they assert
is being driven by increased foreign market demand for furs, if
left unabated, could deplete local bobcat populations and lead
to viability concerns for the species in certain parts of
California. They also assert DFW does not have current, reliable
estimates for bobcat populations and so is unable to establish
sustainable harvest limits. Supporters object to the practice of
some commercial fur trappers who place traps on the boundaries
of national parks to trap bobcats and ship the pelts to overseas
markets in China and Russia for a profit. Supporters argue
increasing numbers of bobcats are being killed for the private
profit of a few international fur traders, when these native
animals are more valuable to the state as a living component of
California's wildlife heritage. Both the author and supporters
note bobcats play an integral role in the natural ecosystem,
including helping to keep rabbit and rodent populations in
check, which they consume as part of their daily diet. In the
area surrounding Joshua Tree National Monument, thousands of
acres of lands were acquired to create wildlife corridors to
provide bobcats and other wildlife with safe passage in and out
of the park. These acquisitions were financed with state funding
as part of a collaborative conservation strategy involving
multiple state and federal agencies and nonprofit land trusts.
Supporters assert allowing bobcats to be trapped for profit in
the fur trade impacts the investment the state and federal
governments and other partners have made in these areas to
protect these animals. Supporters also note bobcats, like other
native wildlife, are a significant draw for Californians and out
of state tourists who come from around the world to visit
California's parks and other scenic areas with the hope of
catching a rare glimpse of native wildlife, including bobcats.
This visitation contributes millions of dollars to the state's
economy and to the economies of local communities.
Opposition Arguments : Opponents argue that since the bobcat is
not endangered and DFW monitors the annual harvest, additional
AB 1213
Page 7
restrictions on bobcat trapping are unnecessary. They assert
there is adequate protected habitat currently in California for
bobcats where trapping is not allowed, and note that current
harvest levels are less than 15% of the allowed quota and are
minimal compared to harvest levels in the 1970s and 1980s.
Opponents also argue that making the bobcat a fur-bearing mammal
and then prohibiting the sale of bobcat furs is contradictory
and confusing, since it is intended that fur-bearing mammals may
be trapped and their furs sold. They further assert that
prohibiting commercial harvest of bobcats will have a negative
economic impact on those who trap bobcats, whether for
commercial or sport purposes, on companies that manufacture and
sell trapping equipment, and on the fur industry itself. Some
opponents also argue that prohibiting trapping of bobcats could
have a negative impact on populations of birds and mammals that
nest on the ground and are prey of bobcats. Opponents note the
cyclical nature of the fur trade market and that not all the
furs are sold to overseas markets but include pelts that are
sold to California based companies. Opponents also assert that
prohibiting trapping of bobcats will impact the traditions and
life styles of individuals who have a long tradition of trapping
bobcats.
Note: It should be noted, as explained further above, that
current regulations allow some mammals classified as fur-bearing
mammals to be trapped for sale of their furs, but prohibit
trapping of others. For example, current regulations prohibit
fisher, marten, river otter, desert kit fox, and red fox, all of
which are classified as fur-bearers, from being taken at any
time, whereas other fur-bearers such as beavers, muskrats, mink
and badgers may be trapped during certain times of year and
subject to other specified limitations.
Suggested technical amendment :
1)Amend subdivision (e) of the legislative findings to read as
follows:
(e) While bobcats are hunted and trapped primarily for their
fur, rather than being classified as "fur-bearing mammals" under
the Fish and Game Code, bobcats are considered "nongame mammals"
under the laws of this state . and consequently c C urrent
California laws and regulations provide no limits on the sex,
age, location, or number of bobcats that may be taken by
licensed trappers on private and public lands in California
AB 1213
Page 8
where the taking of wildlife is not otherwise prohibited.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Action for Animals
Alameda Creek Alliance
All American Real Estate & Consulting
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Animal Welfare Institute
Battle Creek Alliance
Born Free USA
California Chaparral Institute
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation
Central Coast Forest Association
Conservation Congress
Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch
Endangered Habitats League
Environmental Protection Information Center
Friends of the Santa Clara River
Foothills Conservancy
Support - continued
Helping Our Peninsula's Environment
Humane Society of the United States
International Fund for Animal Welfare
Joshua Tree Chamber of Commerce
Joshua Tree Tortoise Rescue
Los Padres Forest Watch
Moms Advocating Sustainability
Morongo Basin Conservation Association
Mojave Desert Land Trust
North County Watch
Project Coyote
Protecting Earth & Animals with Compassion and Education
Public Interest Coalition
Raptors are the Solution
San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Save the Frogs
Sequoia ForestKeeper
Sierra Club California
Tehama Wild Care
AB 1213
Page 9
Terra Foundation
Turtle Island Restoration Network
West Marin Environmental Action Committee
WildCare
Wild Equity Institute
Wild Heritage Planners
Numerous Individuals
Opposition
California Trappers Association
Central Coast Forest Association
National Trappers Association
Numerous Individuals
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096