BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 392 Page 1 Date of Hearing: July 2, 2013 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE Anthony Rendon, Chair SB 392 (Tom Berryhill) - As Amended: June 25, 2013 SENATE VOTE : 39-0 SUBJECT : Fish and Game: Possession Limit SUMMARY : Requires the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to recommend legislation or adopt regulations clarifying when a possession limit is not violated by processing lawfully taken game birds and waterfowl into food; and clarifies the application of certain Labor code exemptions to habitat restoration projects. Specifically, this bill : 1)Requires the FGC, 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. 2)Provides that, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, grants made by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) for habitat restoration projects under the Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) program, the upland game bird program, and the Duck Stamp program, are not subject to provisions of the Labor Code requiring payment of prevailing wage. 3)Makes violation of regulatory requirements prohibiting the possession of birds taken in excess of daily bag and possession limits subject to punishment as either a misdemeanor or an infraction. EXISTING LAW : 1)Makes it unlawful to take animals outside of established seasons or to exceed bag limits or possession limits established in the Fish and Game Code or through regulations adopted by the FGC. Bag limits are defined as the maximum limit, in number and amount, of an animal that can be lawfully taken by any one person during a specified period of time. Possession limits are defined as the maximum, in number and amount, of an animal that may lawfully be possessed by one SB 392 Page 2 person. 2)Allows up to the possession limit of any game bird or mammal to be possessed outside the open hunting or fishing season if the person possessing the animals has a valid hunting license and required tags, or if the person received the game bird or mammal as a donation from another licensed hunter and has a copy of the donor's hunting license and required tags. Similarly, allows a donor intermediary to receive game birds or mammals from a donor to give to a charitable entity, provided that the donor intermediary possessing the animals outside the open season has documentation of the hunter/donor's license and tag information. Any charitable organization receiving the donated game meat must maintain the documentation provided for one year. 3)Authorizes the DFW to enter into contracts for fish and wildlife habitat preservation, restoration and enhancement with public and private entities. Provides that such contracts are not subject to provisions of the Labor Code requiring payment of prevailing wage, with certain exceptions. Authorizes DFW to enter into contracts with nonprofit organizations for habitat conservation projects using monies from the upland game bird stamp account, and for waterfowl breeding and wintering habitat using monies from the Duck Stamp Account. Further authorizes DFW to make grants to nonprofits, governmental entities and other entities to implement the SHARE program using funds from the SHARE Account. 4)Makes violation of regulatory requirements prohibiting the possession of any birds taken in this state in excess of the daily bag and possession limits subject to punishment as a misdemeanor. Provides exceptions from the prohibition for the purpose of transporting, cleaning and storage, in which case an individual may possess game birds taken by another hunter provided that they are tagged by the hunter who has lawfully taken them. Requires the tag to contain specified information including the hunter's name, address, hunting license number, kinds and numbers of birds taken, the date and location of the kill, and signature. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs. SB 392 Page 3 COMMENTS : This bill addresses three distinct issues: how rules regarding possession limits for game birds apply to game meat that has been processed into food for consumption; criminal penalties for violations of game bird possession limits; and the application or exemption there from of Labor Code prevailing wage requirements for habitat restoration projects. Clarifying Application of Possession Limits to Processed Game Birds : The Fish and Game Code and regulations adopted by the FGC establish bag and possession limits for various game species that are allowed to be hunted in the state. Bag limits refer to the total number of a particular species of animal that can be taken in a single time period, normally a day. Possession limits refer to the number of a particular species that can be in the possession of one person at any given time. Possession limits vary but tend to be double the bag limit. This allows hunters to have in their possession animals that were taken on different days, while still enabling enforcement by game wardens of laws against poaching. The sponsors of this bill are concerned that the possession limit restricts the ability of hunters to freeze or otherwise process for food game birds taken on different days for future consumption. On the other hand, if the possession limit does not apply at all to preserved game meat, poachers could exceed the daily bag limit, but if not caught on that day claim that they shot the birds over different multiple days. There have been examples of successful poaching prosecutions where large numbers of waterfowl in a violator's freezer were used as evidence in the prosecution. The resolution of this issue requires a balance of considerations to both enable law abiding hunters to preserve game for future consumption, while still providing game wardens with the tools they need in the field to enforce the law. This bill would leave the details regarding the resolution of the issue to the FGC by requiring the FGC to adopt regulations or make recommendations to the Legislature to clarify when lawfully taken game birds can be processed into food and maintained for future consumption without violating the possession limit. Should violation of the possession limit be punishable as either a misdemeanor or an infraction (a wobblet) rather than only as a misdemeanor? Regulations adopted by the FGC prohibit the possession of any birds taken in this state in excess of the daily bag and possession limit. Violation of this prohibition is subject to prosecution as a misdemeanor. The regulations provide exceptions from the possession prohibition for the SB 392 Page 4 purpose of transportation, cleaning, storage, shipment, or taxidermy services, where an individual may possess game birds taken by another hunter provided they are properly tagged. Because the tagging requirements are very specific, the sponsors of this bill are concerned that an individual may be cited for inadvertently failing to include all of the information required on the tag, and be guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would allow violations of the possession limits to be cited as either a misdemeanor or an infraction, commonly known as a "wobblet." This would allow a prosecutor to decide whether to file a misdemeanor or an infraction charge, depending on the severity of the circumstances. The sponsors of this bill also argue that allowing the option of either a misdemeanor or an infraction charge may actually lead to more prosecutions since minor violations are often dismissed and not prosecuted at all if the prosecution does not feel that a misdemeanor is warranted. In such a case, this bill would allow the violator to be cited for an infraction. On the other hand, this bill would also allow a more serious violation of the possession limit to be cited as an infraction rather than a misdemeanor as well, though that decision would be left up to the discretion of the charging entity. Should grants for habitat restoration projects funded from special funds such as the Duck Stamp and Inland Game Bird Stamp Accounts be exempt from Labor Code provisions requiring payment of prevailing wage? This bill seeks to clarify that grants issued by the DFW for habitat restoration projects under three programs are exempt from Labor Code requirements concerning payment of prevailing wage on state contracts. The current law appears to already exempt many such projects but is ambiguous. Specifically, Section 1501.5 of the Fish and Game Code, a general code section that authorizes the DFW to enter into contracts for habitat restoration projects, expressly provides that contracts entered into by the DFW for fish and wildlife habitat preservation, restoration, and enhancement with public and private entities are not public works or public improvements, and are not subject to the Labor Code provisions requiring prevailing wage. Section 1501.5 lists certain exceptions to which the code section does not apply, but then also provides exceptions to the exceptions, which include contracts with public agencies, nonprofit organizations, or Indian tribes that exceed $50,000 in costs. Federal law also exempts habitat projects authorized under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act from federal prevailing wage SB 392 Page 5 requirements, based on a legal opinion issued by the U.S. Department of Interior, Office of the Solicitor. However, the specific Fish and Game Code sections that authorize the DFW to issue grants for habitat restoration projects with funds from the Duck Stamp, Inland Waterfowl Stamp, and SHARE program accounts are silent as to the prevailing wage issue. This bill would clarify that such projects are also exempt from these requirements. The author and sponsors of this bill assert that application of prevailing wage requirements to these types of habitat restoration projects poses several problems, including: 1) that projects funded under these accounts tend to be smaller projects and the contractors that bid on them and are available to perform the work tend to be local farmers or ranchers and not larger construction companies; 2) requiring payment of prevailing wage can add 35% or more to the cost of the project, which reduces the amount of on the ground work that can be performed under the grant; 3) many of the projects involve matching cost-share agreements between federal, state and private parties, and since federal law exempts these projects from prevailing wage requirements, the higher costs for prevailing wage requirements must be borne by the state share, which creates inconsistency and complexities for project implementation; and 4) application of the requirements can delay implementation of projects which are seasonally limited as to when they can be completed. On the other hand, habitat restoration projects funded under these programs may also include larger projects that involve use of heavy earth moving equipment for activities such as contouring, dredging or tree removal, for which exemption from prevailing wage requirements may raise concerns. Another option the committee may wish to consider to the exemptions as proposed in this bill could be to limit the exemptions to smaller projects under a certain dollar threshold, or to place conditions on the specific types of activities that would be covered. Alternatively, the committee could chose to leave the law as is, deleting the proposed exemption language, or approve the bill as proposed. SUGGESTED TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS : If the Committee elects to approve this bill, technical amendments are needed to avoid a drafting error and make a minor technical change as follows: SB 392 Page 6 On page 7, line 12, after "waterfowl" insert: "projects" On page 7, line 20 after "agreements" insert: "as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 1571" SUPPORT ARGUMENTS : Supporters of this bill believe it will help provide needed clarity to hunters regarding application of possession limits to processed game meat. The ability to cite a violation of the possession limit as either a misdemeanor or an infraction will allow for flexibility in enforcing tag labeling violations that can be confusing for apprentice hunters. Supporters also believe the clarification regarding public contracting and labor code prevailing wage exemptions will provide for more efficient and effective use of limited game bird stamp revenues. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California Waterfowl Association Opposition None on file. Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916) 319-2096