BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 392|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 392
Author: Berryhill (R)
Amended: 5/2/13
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/23/13
AYES: Pavley, Cannella, Evans, Fuller, Hueso, Lara, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Jackson, Monning
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Fish and Game Code: possession limit
SOURCE : California Waterfowl Association
DIGEST : This bill requires the Fish and Game Commission
(Commission), on or before January 1, 2015, to recommend
legislation or adopt regulations to clarify when a possession
limit is not violated by processing into food, lawfully taken
game birds, and waterfowl.
ANALYSIS : Existing law makes it unlawful to take, among other
animals, mammals and birds outside of established seasons or to
exceed any bag limit or possession limit established in the Fish
and Game Code or by regulations adopted by the Commission.
However, existing law authorizes possession of a game bird or
mammal during a period other than the open season if the person
possesses a hunting license and tag or tags issued to that
person for the current or immediate past license year or the
person receives the game bird or mammal from that licensee and
CONTINUED
SB 392
Page
2
has specific documentation that the recipient is a donor
intermediary, as defined.
This bill requires the Commission, on or before January 1, 2015,
to recommend, legislation or adopt regulations to clarify when a
possession limit is not violated by processing into food,
lawfully taken game birds, and waterfowl.
Background
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 six or eight. As a
general rule, the possession limit is double the bag limit, as
established by regulations of the Commission.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/17/13)
California Waterfowl Association (source)
California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc.
National Rifle Association of America
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/17/13)
PawPac
Protecting Earth and Animals with Compassion and Education
Public Interest Coalition
Sierra Club California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office and
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.
CONTINUED
SB 392
Page
3
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 this bill. They view the exception from the
possession limit as potentially authorizing 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 of Fish and Wildlife
(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.
RM:nld 5/21/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED