BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 665
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
665 (Frazier) - As Amended April 15, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Water, Parks and Wildlife |Vote:|15 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable:
SUMMARY:
This bill declares the state of California fully occupies the
field of the taking and possession of fish and game.
Specifically, this bill:
AB 665
Page 2
1)Specifies that the state fully occupies the field of the
taking and possession of fish and game pursuant to the Fish
and Game Code, regulations adopted by the Fish and Game
Commission (FGC) pursuant to the Fish and Game Code, and
Section 20 of Article IV of the California Constitution, and
that all local ordinances and regulations are subject to this
section of the Fish and Game Code.
2)Requires the FGC, the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW),
or any other governmental entity legally authorized to affect
hunting and fishing on navigable waters held in public trust
to ensure that the fishing and hunting rights of the public
guaranteed under the Constitution are protected.
3)Provides that unless expressly authorized by the Fish and Game
Code, other state law or federal law, the FGC and the DFW are
the only entities in the state that may adopt or promulgate
regulations regarding the taking or possession of fish and
game on any lands or waters within the state.
4)Provides that nothing in this bill prohibits a public or
private landowner or their designee from controlling public
access or public use, including hunting and fishing, on
property that the landowner owns in fee, leases, holds an
easement upon, or is otherwise expressly authorized to control
for those purposes in a manner consistent with state law.
5)Requires the FGC, when adopting regulations regarding hunting
and fishing, to consider public health and safety.
FISCAL EFFECT:
AB 665
Page 3
Negligible costs to the FGC and the DFW to review local
ordinances and regulations that may violate these provisions.
(Fish and Game Preservation Fund)
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, the purpose of this bill is
to reaffirm the state's sole regulatory authority over the
taking and possession of fish and game by prohibiting cities
and counties from adopting local ordinances relating to the
taking or possession of fish and game.
2)Background. The California Constitution (Section 20, Article
I) creates the FGC and allows the Legislature to vest the
commission with the responsibility to regulate fishing and
hunting activities in the state, an authority the Legislature
has exercised since early in the 20th Century. The California
Constitution (Section 25, Article I) guarantees the right to
fish on the public lands and waters of the state and prohibits
laws to impede access to these lands and waters for the
purpose of fishing. The California Supreme Court in In re
Makings (1927) determined that local governments are
prohibited from regulating, or interfering with, the taking of
fish and game and places this responsibility with the
Legislature.
In a 1986 opinion, the Attorney General analyzed both of these
constitutional provisions and opined that a county may by
ordinance adopt laws regulating certain methods of hunting
within its jurisdiction, where such action is necessary to
protect public health and safety, and where the local
ordinance only incidentally affects the field of hunting. The
particular ordinance in question banned steel-jawed leg hold
traps. Attorney General opinions are persuasive authority but
not binding on courts.
AB 665
Page 4
The 1986 Attorney General opinion relied in part on the
reasoning of the Court of Appeal in People v. Mueller (1970) 8
Cal.App.3d 949. The court in that case found a local
ordinance regulating fishing to be valid, and held that if the
primary purpose of the ordinance is the protection of public
health and safety, and the ordinance affects hunting and
fishing incidentally, the ordinance is a valid exercise of the
local police power.
3)Prior Legislation. AB 2146 (Canciamilla) of 2006 was
substantially similar to this bill, but applied only to local
ordinances adopted after the effective date of the bill. AB
2146 was held in the Senate. AB 815 (Berryhill) of 2008 and
AB 979 (Berryhill) of 2010 were substantially similar to this
bill. Both bills were vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
AB 815 was vetoed because the Budget was delayed. AB 979
was viewed as unnecessary.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 665
Page 5