BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1213 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 15, 2013 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Mike Gatto, Chair AB 1213 (Bloom) - As Amended: May 6, 2013 Policy Committee: Water, Parks and Wildlife Vote: 9-5 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill reclassifies bobcats as fur-bearing mammals. This bill also authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to prepare a management plan based on bobcat population estimates and creates a no-trapping zone as specified. 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 specified permits. 2)Authorizes DFW to prepare a management plan for the taking of bobcats, and requires any proposed management plan to be prepared in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other applicable laws. DFW is required to hold at least six public hearings on the plan in different areas of the state. 3)Requires the management plan to be paid for through trapping licenses and shipping tag fees. 4)Authorizes the Fish and Game Commission (Commission), upon completion of the management plan, to promulgate regulations consistent with the plan. 5)Establishes a statewide ban on trapping of bobcats effective July 1, 2015, if the management plan and regulations are not completed. FISCAL EFFECT AB 1213 Page 2 Cost pressures to DFW of more than $1 million to develop the management plan and adopt regulations (special fund). DFW generates less than $100,000 per year in trapping license and shipping tag fees. In fiscal year 2012-13, the DFW issued 733 trapping licenses of which 723 were for residents (at $115.50), five for non-residents (at $549.25), and five for juniors (at $37.34). The Department issues between one and three thousand shipping tags per year, each costing only $3. The lack of funding available for the management plan and regulations may result in a de-facto trapping ban. COMMENTS 1)Rationale. According to the author, this bill responds to an increase in the commercial trapping of bobcats in California, believed to be driven by a significant rise in demand and prices paid for pelts in other countries. In 2011, the number of bobcats trapped and killed increased over 50% from the previous season. The author cites recent reports indicating the price of bobcat pelts has increased from an average of $78 per pelt to over $700 per pelt in less than three years. The impact of this increase in trapping 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 and about 74,000 in 1981. The author first became aware of the issue when it was discovered that commercial trappers killed numerous bobcats just outside the 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 AB 1213 Page 3 California. Bobcats are protected inside the park boundaries, as are other native wildlife species. This bill address both issues by requiring the department of develop management plans based on population and prohibiting trapping near the Joshua Tree National Park. 2)Support. This bill is supported by numerous animal-welfare, environmental organizations, conservation and local interests located near the Joshua Tree National Park boundaries. Supporters contend that this bill will update state law to conform to current wildlife management practices and prevent the depletion of local bobcat populations. 3)Opposition. Hunting, firearms and agricultural organizations 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 classifying the bobcat as 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. Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081