BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2205
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Anthony Rendon, Chair
AB 2205 (Donnelly) - As Amended: April 23, 2014
SUBJECT : Hounding of bears
SUMMARY : Allows a county-by-county reversal of the ban
prohibiting the use of dogs to chase bears and eliminates
authority for an optional hound tag program. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to report
various bear-related information to the Fish and Game
Commission (Commission) including, but not limited to,
bear-related incidents, sale of bear tags the previous year,
and if there is a need to adjust bear harvest quotas
(bear-related report).
2)Requires DFW to notify the Boards of Supervisors of each
county "affected by bear interactions" regarding the
bear-related report.
3)Allows the Board of Supervisor of any notified County to hold
a hearing and determine whether DFW shall allow the use of
dogs to pursue bears and compel DFW to recommend to the
Commission, and the Commission to adopt, regulations allowing
the use of dogs to pursue bears in that County.
4)Eliminates Commission authority to establish a program
requiring dogs that pursue mammals such as wild pigs to be
issued a unique license tag and instead creates a bear stamp
program for the use of hounds.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits the use of dogs to pursue bears except under
specified circumstances.
2)Allows dogs that are guarding livestock or crops to pursue
bears.
3)Allows DFW to permit the use of not more than three dogs to
pursue bears under a depredation permit under specified
conditions including, but not limited, a requirement that
AB 2205
Page 2
nonlethal and avoidance measures were first used.
4)Allows DFW to permit the use of dogs to pursue bears for the
purpose of scientific knowledge that supports the
sustainability of bears or healthy ecosystems.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill would allow piecemeal, county-by-county
reversals of SB 1221 (Lieu/2012) which went into effect January
1, 2013 and banned the practice of allowing dogs to chase bears.
This bill attempts to correlate the elimination of hounding
during the bear hunting season, which lasts approximately four
months and takes place in the wilderness, with overall bear
management or bear problems in the urban and rural human-bear
interface.
The practice of using dogs to hunt bears 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 the dogs 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 two 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.
This bill requires DFW to submit a report on bear-related
incidents and then specifies that in response DFW should include
recommendations on the possible need "to increase or reduce take
in order to address bear management or population health
concerns." However, as the analysis on SB 1221 noted, the use
of dogs to hunt bear and bobcat is a recreational pursuit and
not a DFW population management tool for bears. Of the 32
states that allow bear hunting, 18 permit the use of dogs and
15, including California, Colorado, Oregon, Montana, Washington,
and Wyoming expressly prohibit it.
In the original debate over SB 1221, proponents of hounding
argued unsuccessfully that using dogs to pursue bears and
bobcats was a valued tradition and a way of life for them and
that their dogs were prized athletes that were well trained and
AB 2205
Page 3
treated. They also asserted that hounding helped with bear and
bobcat population management, public safety, and protection of
property, livestock, and apiaries. They stated that the use of
dogs was more humane that other types of hunting as it allowed
for catch and release of animals and that hounding restrictions
would result in lost revenues to DFW and local economies.
Advocates for ending the practice of hounding bears and bobcats
maintained that the use of hounds during the hunting of bears
and bobcats was unnecessary and cruel because the hounds can
attack the bear or bobcat or it may turn upon the hounds,
resulting in potential injury to both. Advocates for the
original ban stated that the failure of hound hunters to have
physical control over their dogs, which are sometimes many miles
away, put nontarget species, including threatened and endangered
species, at collateral risk for injury and disease from exposure
to dogs, their urine and feces. Advocates of the ban stated
that the practice of hunting bears and bobcats with hounds was
unsporting, inhumane, and inconsistent with protecting animal
welfare, wildlife and natural resources. In the end, the
Legislature and the governor were convinced by those arguments
and SB 1221 was signed into law on September 26, 2012.
In addition to reversing SB 1221, this bill would create a
precedent of allowing county governments to compel State action
with respect to wildlife. However, wildlife are not "owned" by
the Counties where they reside, they are held in public trust
for all of the people of California by the State. The only
County-specific provision in Fish and Game Code is a process
whereby counties can opt out of having an antlerless deer hunt.
But that statutory principal is the opposite of this one: it
allows Counties to be more protective of wildlife. It does not
allow Counties to direct the State to be less protective.
Supporting arguments : The author states that this bill would
provide counties with local control over whether or not to allow
the use of hounds to hunt bears and bobcats within their
jurisdiction and that "counties deserve local authority over
decisions which directly impact their economy, public safety and
traditional lifestyles." The author states that bear guides and
hunters "stay in local motels, purchase gas, eat in their
restaurants and shop in local stores each fall." Supporters add
that requiring DFW to make a triennial report to the Commission
will "allow Counties to make an educated decision on what is
best for their economy and the public, while appropriately
allowing DFW and the Commission to make science-based decision
AB 2205
Page 4
on bear management."
Opposing arguments : Opponents argue that this legislation seeks
to completely undermine California's new law while establishing
a bizarre precedent for state wildlife management by county
supervisor fiat. Opponents state that to "re-hear this issue
again so soon without any evidence of necessity is a waste of
the legislature's time and consequently, of taxpayers' money."
Other opponents state that this bill would "allow counties to
circumvent this needed reform, set a terrible precedent, and
deliberately create a confusion of regulations and loopholes for
those hoping to continue this outdated and cruel practice" and
that "many states have successful hunting seasons without
allowing hounding."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 2205
Page 5
California Houndsmen for Conservation (sponsor)
Alcalde Ranch
Amador County Board of Supervisors
Butler Engineering Group
Butte County Board of Supervisors
California Coalition of Diving Advocates
California Farm Bureau Federation
Central California Sporting Dog Association
Glenn County Board of Supervisors
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
Lake County Board of Supervisors
Lassen County Board of Supervisors
Lassen County Fish and Game Commission
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California
Plumas County Board of Supervisors
Safari Club International Calif. Chapters
Scott Valley Veterinary Clinic
Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors
Sutter County Board of Supervisors
Tehema County Board of Supervisors
The California Sportsmen's Lobby, Inc.
Tri County Houndsmen
Trinity County Board of Supervisors
Trophy Quest Taxidermy
Tule River Houndsmen
Yuba County Board of Supervisors
Petition signed by numerous individuals
Numerous individuals independently
Opposition
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Animal Rescue Team
Bear Education Aversion Response League
Best Friends Animal Society
Bird Ally X/Humboldt Wildlife Care Center
Earth Island Institute
Environmental Protection Info. Center
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Assoc.
Injured and Orphaned Wildlife
Klamath Forest Alliance
Lions, Tigers & Bears Sanctuary and Rescue
Los Padres Forest Watch
Mountain Lion Foundation
AB 2205
Page 6
ORV Watch Kern County
Project Coyote
Protecting Earth and Animals with Compassion and Education
Public Interest Coalition
San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Santa Clara County Activists for Animals
Sierra Club California
Santa Cruz Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Sierra Wildlife Coalition
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Los Angeles
The Fund for Animals Wildlife Center
The Humane Society of the United States
The Marin Humane Society
Wildlife Education and Rehabilitation Center in Morgan Hill
Numerous individuals
AB 2205
Page 7
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096