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