BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1213
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Anthony Rendon, Chair
AB 1213 (Bloom) - As Amended: April 24, 2013
SUBJECT : Bobcats; Trapping
SUMMARY : Establishes a no-trapping buffer zone around Joshua
Tree National Park in which the trapping of bobcats would be
prohibited, and authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife
(DFW) to prepare a management plan based on updated population
estimates for bobcats. If the management plan is not completed
and regulations concerning the plan approved by the Fish and
Game Commission (FGC) by July 1, 2015 a statewide ban on
trapping of bobcats would take effect at that time.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits trapping of bobcats within a defined area
surrounding Joshua Tree National Park, with exceptions for
lawful takings by DFW or pursuant to a scientific or
propagation permit or a depredation permit.
2)Authorizes DFW to prepare a management plan for take of
bobcats. Requires the management plan if prepared to include
all the following:
a) A current population estimate for bobcats at the
statewide, regional and county levels. Requires that
the population estimate be generated using modern
population census techniques, as specified, and not based
solely on harvest data or habitat modeling. Requires DFW
to rely on recent area-specific data on bobcat abundance
and population trends and to rely, to the maximum extent
practicable, on recently published and peer-reviewed
studies.
b) An estimate of maximum sustainable harvest limits
for bobcats at the statewide, regional and county levels,
based on California specific studies, and taking into
account other sources of bobcat mortality. Requires that
DFW also consider the goal of maintaining bobcat
abundance so as to not appreciably diminish their role in
the ecosystem or the opportunity for bobcat wildlife
viewing.
AB 1213
Page 2
c) An estimate of the full costs to DFW of implementing
the management plan, including the costs of
administering, monitoring and enforcing any harvest
requirements.
d) An estimate of the full economic and ecosystem
values of bobcats in California, including their role in
regulating rodent populations and the economic
contributions of non-consumptive uses such as tourism,
wildlife viewing, photography and property values.
e) A full consideration of restrictions on harvest,
including no-harvest zones in and around state and
national parks and other protected areas, prohibitions
within residential areas and other areas where conflicts
with non-consumptive uses may be reasonably anticipated
to occur, area-specific limits, bag limits, and
restrictions on age and gender of animals taken.
f) A prohibition on trapping within two miles from the
boundaries of national and state parks and preserves,
national wildlife refuges, and other conservation areas
identified by DFW or the FGC following public
consultation.
g) A prohibition on trapping in any county or other
subarea of the state where DFW lacks a reliable
population estimate generated from data gathered within
the previous five years.
h) A prohibition on trapping on private land without
the express written consent of the owner.
i) Area and individual harvest limits sufficient to
prevent depletion of bobcat populations at the local
scale.
j) License and tagging fees sufficient to fully offset
on an annual basis the costs estimated by DFW to
implement the management plan.
3)Requires that any proposed management plan be prepared in
conformance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and other applicable laws and that
AB 1213
Page 3
at least six public hearings be held on the plan in different
areas of the state.
4)Authorizes the FGC upon completion of the management plan to
promulgate regulations consistent with the plan.
5)Provides that if no final regulations are promulgated by the
FGC on a bobcat management plan by July 1, 2015, it shall
become unlawful to trap any bobcat, or to sell or export any
bobcat or part therefore taken in California, or to possess
any bobcat or part thereof taken in violation of this
prohibition. Provides that the prohibition on trapping shall
not apply to the take of bobcats in accordance with a
scientific or propagation permit or a depredation permit, and
shall not apply to the sale or export of bobcats lawfully
possessed prior to July 1, 2015.
6)Reclassifies bobcats as fur-bearing mammals.
7)States Legislative findings and declarations regarding
bobcats.
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
the 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.
AB 1213
Page 4
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)Prohibits, by regulation, 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)Imposes, by regulation, additional requirements on persons
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
AB 1213
Page 5
COMMENTS : The previous version of this bill, which was heard
in this Committee on April 2, 2013, proposed to ban the trapping
of bobcats statewide. The author has substantially amended this
bill to instead limit the trapping ban to a buffer zone area
around the boundaries of Joshua Tree National Park, the area of
the state which has generated the greatest concern recently
regarding the increase in commercial trapping. The buffer zone
is marked by highways around the boundaries of the park and
would extend for a width of about 2 miles on average around the
park, though somewhat less in some areas and more in others.
In addition, this bill would authorize the DFW to develop a
statewide and regionally based management plan for bobcats,
based on updated population studies, and would require that the
management plan, if developed, be reviewed and approved by the
FGC through adoption of regulations. If DFW does not develop a
management plan that is approved by the FGC through adoption of
regulations by July 1, 2015, then a statewide ban on the
trapping of bobcats would take effect at that time.
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 Spring. The bobcat gets its common name
from its short bobbed tail.
The author 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.
The author indicates he first became aware of the issue when
commercial trappers killed numerous bobcats just outside the
AB 1213
Page 6
Joshua Tree National Park boundaries, where some traps were
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.
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
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 unclear since the state lacks recent population
data for bobcats. According to information provided by DFW, the
state's breeding population of bobcats was estimated to be
approximately 61,000 in 1978. In 1981, based on the estimated
amount of bobcat habitat available in the state, DFW estimated
the statewide breeding population to be about 74,000. Based on
AB 1213
Page 7
that estimate, DFW established an annual statewide harvest quota
of 14,400 animals at that time, which is still the harvest quota
used today. DFW indicates these earlier population estimates
were derived by combining the measured density of bobcats from
directed studies with trapper catch rates to create an index to
density by habitat type. 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. Although the
population studies have not been updated, DFW believes based on
its tracking of harvest data that the quota and population
estimates are still valid.
DFW also notes that for 7 years from the 1979-80 season through
the 1986-87 season, DFW required trappers and hunters to return
the jaws of bobcats taken to monitor age and sex structure of
harvested bobcats. Based on that data, the FGC reduced the
season length until the information showed local population
indexes had stabilized such that the harvest was not impacting
the population. DFW further notes that compared with peak
harvest levels in the 1970s and 1980s, when the annual harvest
of bobcats averaged over 10,000, the level of harvest for the
past two decades has been relatively low and stable,
notwithstanding the recent upturn. However, DFW also
acknowledges the current area of occupied bobcat habitat is
unmeasured and has probably declined to some extent through
human development. Nevertheless, DFW believes that the
reduction in habitat has not been at a level commensurate with
the reduction in trapping and hunting effort and harvest as
compared to those earlier levels.
The author and sponsors note that even if bobcats are not
threatened on a statewide level, excessive harvest rates can
have a regional impact on bobcat populations. This potential
has been recognized by DFW in its annual harvest report
specifically for the northeast region. 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
AB 1213
Page 8
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.
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
AB 1213
Page 9
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
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.
Suggested Amendments : This bill would require DFW, in
developing population estimates and sustainable harvest limits,
to do so for statewide, regional and county levels. Committee
staff recommends that the author and committee consider an
amendment to strike the reference to county levels since it
would be more scientifically appropriate to calculate population
AB 1213
Page 10
estimates and sustainable harvest limits based on biological or
ecologically significant regions rather than county
administrative boundaries. This change could be effected by
deleting the reference to counties in three places as follows:
4013 (a)(1) A current population estimate for bobcats at the
statewide , and regional , and county levels.
(2) An estimate of maximum sustainable harvest limits for
bobcats at the statewide , and regional , and county levels.
(6) (B) A prohibition on trapping in any county or other subarea
biologically significant region of the state where the
department lacks a reliable population estimate generated from
data gathered within the previous five years.
The author also indicates that it was not his intent for the
amendments to require that the new management plan apply to the
hunting of bobcats, which is already subject to bag limits and
other restrictions and are a relatively small percentage of the
annual take. The author proposes amendments for adoption in
committee to clarify that it applies only to trapping as
follows:
On page 4, line 18, strike and hunting .
Amend page 5 line 34 to read "(E) Trapping license and tagging
fees?
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
Earth Island Institute
Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch
Endangered Habitats League
AB 1213
Page 11
Environmental Protection Information Center
Friends of the Santa Clara River
Foothills Conservancy
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
National Park Conservation Association
North County Watch
Project Coyote
Protecting Earth & Animals with Compassion and Education
Public Interest Coalition
Raptors are the Solution
Support - continued
Red Bank Outfitters
San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Save the Frogs
Sequoia ForestKeeper
Sierra Club California
Tehama Wild Care
Terra Foundation
Turtle Island Restoration Network
West Marin Environmental Action Committee
WildCare
Wild Equity Institute
Wild Heritage Planners
Wildlife Education and Rehabilitation Center
Numerous Individuals
Opposition
California Farm Bureau
California Houndsmen for Conservation
California Trappers Association
Central Coast Forest Association
Crit'R Call
Gun Owners of California, Inc.
AB 1213
Page 12
National Trappers Association
Numerous Individuals
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096