BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2013-2014 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 392 HEARING DATE: April 23, 2013
AUTHOR: Berryhill URGENCY: No
VERSION: February 20, 2013 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Fish and Game Code: violations.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Existing law in the Fish and Game Code and regulations of the
Fish and Game Commission establish bag and possession limits for
game birds and mammals.
Existing law establishes that except as otherwise provided, all
violations of the Fish and Game code are misdemeanors. There are
numerous exceptions in which offenses are designated as either
infractions or felonies.
For game birds and ducks, a bag limit is a daily maximum of
birds that a hunter may take in one day. A possession limit
exceeds the bag limit and refers to the number of birds that may
be possessed. Bag limits and possession limits for migratory
bird and duck species are recommended to the commission by
federal wildlife agencies. Although based on geographic zones
throughout the state, it is common for daily duck limits to be
seven birds and for the limit on geese to be 6 or 8. As a
general rule, the possession limit is double the bag limit, as
established by regulations of the commission.
PROPOSED LAW
1. This bill would exempt from the possession limit those birds
processed for immediate consumption while located at a personal
abode or migratory bird preservation facility. It would direct
the commission to adopt regulations defining the term "processed
for immediate consumption."
2. This bill would also allow a judge, based on the
recommendation of the California Department of Fish and
1
Wildlife, to reduce any misdemeanor violation in the Fish and
Game Code to an infraction.
3. The bill makes technical changes recommended by Legislative
Counsel.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author and the sponsor, the California
Waterfowl Association, many Fish and Game code violations are
not prosecuted at the county level either because of crowded
dockets, lack of interest, or various other reasons. Further,
according to the sponsor, some misdemeanors are not intentional
or have little or no impact on fish and wildlife resources.
The provision regarding the change in possession limit is
considered technical by the sponsors and would align California
law with the standards in many other states and the federal
government, according to the sponsors. The problem that the
sponsors identify is that many waterfowl and dove hunters are
technically in violation of state law because processed foods
(such as jerky or sausage) could be counted within the
possession limit. They also point to population estimates of
many waterfowl species to indicate high populations of many
waterfowl species.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The opposition addresses both provisions of the bill. They view
the exception from the possession limit potentially authorizing
essentially unlimited take of ducks and game birds with no
oversight by game wardens. Moreover, the opposition raises the
question of whether Fish and Wildlife wardens would need to
start inspecting freezers at duck clubs or other "bird
preservation facilities" or even whether inspections (with
warrants) of homes should be expanded, and what those related
costs to the department would be.
Other opposition groups oppose the possibility of reducing
misdemeanors to infractions. Misdemeanors include many
violations that are not hunting related and the department
should not have the discretion to reduce penalties for crimes
related to pollution, illegal streambed diversions, and other
categories of offenses.
COMMENTS
The sponsor and the committee have had discussions that could
result in amendments that may be approved by the committee.
These amendments would:
2
1. Delete the proposed change in the possession limit for game
birds and instead direct the commission to recommend statutory
changes or adopt regulations that address the basic question of
"What is the endpoint of the possession limit?"
At some point, a hunter otherwise in compliance with applicable
regulations may process, for example, ducks into sausage. While
the threat of prosecution may be minimal, it is understandable
that hunters may want clarity on the question of whether and to
what extent such sausage counts against the possession limit.
The commission would have to cope with questions that are
probably best resolved away from the Legislature such as the
level of enforcement that may be required, which locations
(houses, or other places such as bird preservation facilities)
may be included, and whether a condition or numeric limit
similar to the proposal in the bill that the possession limit
does not extend to game birds processed "for immediate
consumption" should be imposed, among other issues.
This amendment may be unusual in that the Legislature has given
up an opportunity to make sausage.
2. This first amendment may potentially resolve the policy
question regarding possession limits. However, certain penalties
adopted by the commission would still be applicable and the
author is interested in reviewing that question assuming the
bill moves forward. Any further amendments should be developed
in conjunction with the committee which reserves the right to
re-hear the bill.
3. Delete completely (page 4, lines 7-9) regarding reducing
misdemeanors to infractions.
4. Retain the original definition of "possession limit" on page
2, line 5.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
Page 2, line 5. Delete "any."
AMENDMENT 2
Page 3, line 13, delete all of (e) and replace with:
On or before January 1, 2015, the commission shall
recommend legislation or adopt regulations to clarify when
3
a possession limit may not be violated by processing into
food lawfully taken game birds and waterfowl.
SUPPORT
California Waterfowl Association
National Rifle Association of America
California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc.
OPPOSITION
Sierra Club California
Public Interest Coalition
Protecting Earth and Animals with Compassion and Education
PawPac
4