BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 96
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 25, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
96 (Atkins) - As Introduced January 7, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Water, Parks and Wildlife |Vote:|10 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
AB 96
Page 2
This bill, as of July 1, 2016, prohibits the importation or sale
of elephant or rhinoceros horn in California. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Prohibits a person from purchasing, selling, offering for
sale, possessing with intent to sell, or importing with intent
to sell, ivory or rhinoceros horn, with specified exceptions.
Presumes ivory or rhinoceros horns possessed in retail or
wholesale outlets constitute possession with intent to sell.
2)Exempts from the above prohibition all of the following:
a) State or federal employees undertaking a law
enforcement activity and specified activities authorized
by federal law.
b) Documented Musical Instruments manufactured before
1975 containing less than
20% ivory or rhinoceros horn or bonafide 100 year or
older antiques containing less than 5% ivory or
rhinoceros horn.
3)Authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to permit
the purchase, sale, possession or importation of ivory or
rhinoceros horn for educational or scientific purposes as
specified.
4)Authorizes increased criminal penalties for first violations
ranging from $1,000 to $40, 000, or imprisonment in county
jail for 30 days to one year, or both, depending on the value
of the prohibited product.
5)Authorizes increased criminal penalties for subsequent
violations from $5,000 to $50,000 or an amount equal to two
times the total value of the product (whichever is greater),
or imprisonment in county jail for one year, or both depending
on the value of the prohibited product.
AB 96
Page 3
6)Authorizes DFW to impose prescribed civil penalties or
administrative fines up to $10,000 in addition to any criminal
penalties.
7)Authorizes the payment of a reward of up to $500 to any person
providing information leading to a conviction or entry of
judgment.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Increased one-time GF costs to DFW for staffing start-up and
equipment purchases of up to $1.7 million.
2)Increased on-going GF costs to DFW of over $1 million
annually.
3)Unknown, potential increased revenue resulting from increased
penalties and enforcement activities.
Implementation of this bill will require DFW to lead enforcement
efforts, develop the forensic capacity to analyze evidence of
violations, and develop and implement administrative hearings
and civil penalties. It is unknown how many violations exist,
and to what extend the new law will result in further compliance
or force underground sales.
COMMENTS:
1)Rationale. Current law, (Chapter 692, Statutes of 1976)
AB 96
Page 4
prohibits the importation of any elephant body, body part or
product for commercial purposes. Violation of this
prohibition is punishable as a misdemeanor subject to either a
fine of $1,000 to $5,000, or imprisonment in county jail for
up to six months, or both.
This law also contained uncodified provisions including an
exemption to allow the sale of elephant bodies, body parts or
products that were imported prior to 1977. Uncodified law
also places the burden of proof on the defendant to
demonstrate items were legally imported prior to 1977.
According to the author, allowing ivory possessed and acquired
prior to June 1, 1977, to be sold makes it virtually
impossible to enforce the ban since it is difficult to
determine the age of ivory. Additionally, although the burden
of proof is placed on the defendant, it is uncodified law and
rarely applied in court. Further, current law does not
expressly apply to rhinoceroses which are also poached for
their horns and are imperiled.
This bill addresses the limitations of existing law by: a)
repealing the exemption for ivory possessed or imported prior
to 1977; b) codifying the burden of proof provision; c)
expressly including rhinoceroses in the prohibition; and d)
increasing penalties.
2)Background. The United States is the second largest market
for ivory in the world after China. California provides the
second largest market in the U.S. after NewYork.
Previous surveys identify Los Angeles and San Francisco as
cities with the highest proportions of potentially illegal
ivory sales. A 2014 Study by the Natural Resources Defense
AB 96
Page 5
Council (NRDC) identified significant increases in illegal
sales and higher incidences, almost double, of recently
manufactured ivory from 2006 to 2014.
Species of both Elephants and Rhino are protected under
federal law and considered endangered and imperiled.
3)Federal Actions and Legislation. In July 2013, President
Obama issued an Executive Order committing the U.S. to
increase efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, including
illegal commercial trade in elephant ivory. The United States
Federal Wildlife Service is currently promulgating new
regulations to provide a comprehensive ban.
Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and Lindsey Graham
(R-S.C.) have introduced S. 27, the Wildlife Trafficking
Enforcement Act, to help law enforcement crack down on
poachers and transnational criminal organizations by
strengthening penalties for wildlife trafficking.
H.R. 697 by Representative Young (R-Alaska) weakens existing
provisions of the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 to
allow the importation and sale of ivory under various
scenarios.
4)Other States. Both New York and New Jersey banned ivory trade
in 2014. Other states currently considering adoption of new
stronger laws prohibiting commercial trade in ivory include
AB 96
Page 6
Hawaii, Florida, Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081