BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1792 Hearing Date: June 28,
2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Wood | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |May 31, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Matthew Dumlao |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Elk tags: federally recognized Indian tribes
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is
responsible for managing hunting and sport fishing within the
state. Current law requires CDFW to issue hunting licenses to
take birds or mammals and a fishing license to take fish,
reptiles, or amphibians. In many cases, the license is the
minimum level of certification a hunter or angler needs to take
an animal. For some birds and mammals, including elk, CDFW
issues tags to allow hunters to take specific animals from
certain areas. Each year, the total number of tags issued by
CDFW for each animal as well as the number of tags each licensee
is eligible to receive is restricted. Similarly, CDFW requires
report cards, stamps, or validations for certain fish and
regions.
Under existing law, the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) is
authorized to regulate the taking of elk, and to determine the
area, season, hours, bag and possession limits, and number of
elk that may be taken. Furthermore, FGC may authorize the take
of tule elk (a subspecies of elk found only in California) if
population estimates exceed 2,000 animals, or the Legislature
determines, based on reports prepared by CDFW, that suitable
areas cannot be found in the state to accommodate that
population in a healthy condition.
AB 1792 (Wood) Page 2
of ?
Money from an elk tag fee is deposited in the Big Game
Management Account within the Fish and Game Preservation Fund.
The current elk tag fee is $445.35 for residents and $1,361.20
for nonresidents. In addition, FGC is required by law to
authorize no more than three tags annually to be sold at auction
for purposes of raising funds for programs and projects to
benefit elk. Also, only one elk tag may be sold annually to
nonresidents. In 2015, a total of 356 elk tags were given out
through a lottery drawing.
According to CDFW's website, the goals of CDFW's elk management
program are to maintain healthy elk herds, reestablish elk in
suitable historic range, provide public educational and
recreational opportunities involving elk, and to alleviate
conflicts involving elk on private property.
According to background information provided by the author, elk
are an integral part of Native American traditions. Currently,
tribal members and hunters who want an elk tag purely for game
have to go through the same process to obtain an elk tag. This
is in contrast to fishing for salmon, which also has cultural
significance for many tribes. Many tribes have entered into
treaties with the federal government that reserve the tribes'
hunting and fishing rights for salmon.
In 2011, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-10-11, which
provides, among other things, that it is the policy of the
administration that every state agency and department shall
implement effective government-to-government consultation with
California Native American Tribes. The FGC has adopted a policy
on tribal consultation which states that its purpose is to
create a means by which tribes and the FGC can effectively work
together to realize sustainably-managed natural resources of
mutual interest. The policy states, among other things, that
the FGC will collaborate on solutions tailored to each tribe's
unique needs and capacity. The specific nature of the
collaborations can range from informal information sharing, to a
memorandum of understanding, to co-management with specific
responsibilities and authorities.
AB 1792 (Wood) Page 3
of ?
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would require CDFW, upon request, to meet with
individual federally recognized Native American tribes in
California, including but not limited to, tribes located within
the Pacific Northwest of California, to discuss elk-related
issues for elk located within the territory of the individual
tribe. Furthermore, the bill would require CDFW to work
collaboratively and in good faith with the tribe to identify
possible science-based solutions.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
In support of this bill, the author states: "AB 1792 will
require the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to meet
with tribes to discuss elk related issues and come up with
science based solutions. Elks are one of the many fundamental
cornerstones interwoven within a tribe's heritage. Native
Americans use elk in funeral preparations, honoring elders of a
tribe, and many other cultural celebrations. Fishing for salmon
is an integral part of tribal culture and tribes have entered
into treaties with the federal government that reserve the
tribes' hunting and fishing rights for salmon. Elks are very
much like salmon when it comes to the traditions of Native
Americans, but elks do not have the same designation as salmon.
AB 1792 is a small step forward in addressing this disparity."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received.
COMMENTS
Elk in California
Three subspecies of elk live in California: Roosevelt elk
(Cervus elaphus roosevelti), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus
nelsoni), and Tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannodes). The Tule elk
are the smallest of the elk species in North America and are
endemic to California. As many as 500,000 Tule elk are believed
to have inhabited the state prior to the 1800s, when they were
hunted almost to extinction. A law passed in 1873 protected the
last remaining Tule elk, which were protected on one ranch.
Various relocation efforts over the years have met with mixed
success. In 2010, CDFW estimated in an environmental impact
report (EIR) on elk hunting that there were at least 3,900 Tule
elk statewide in 22 separate herds.
AB 1792 (Wood) Page 4
of ?
According to the CDFW 2010 EIR, Roosevelt elk were once
distributed widely throughout northern California. According to
the National Park Service, Roosevelt elk historically ranged
from the San Francisco Bay Area to Vancouver, British Colombia
in large numbers. Today they can be found from Humboldt County,
California to Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Nearly extinct
by 1925, the number of Roosevelt elk in California had dropped
to as few as 15. One of the last Roosevelt elk herds was located
in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park in northern California.
Protection of habitat in the park and surrounding areas has
allowed the California Roosevelt elk population to rebound.
CDFW estimated in 2010 that the population of Roosevelt elk in
California was about 4,500.
Rocky Mountain elk are native to the Rocky Mountains. According
to the CDFW 2010 EIR, it is unclear whether Rocky Mountain elk
occupied California prior to the arrival of Europeans. In 2010
there were four populations in California, with a total
estimated population of 1,500 - 2,000. A population in the
Warner Mountains in Modoc County in northeastern California
arrived through natural migration from Oregon to California.
Two smaller populations in southern California and one near
Redding were established through translocation efforts.
What is the goal of this bill?
In the original version of this bill, a specific number of elk
tags would have been allocated to federally-recognized Native
American tribes in California. The bill was subsequently
amended to instead require CDFW to meet, upon request, with
individual federally recognized Indian tribes to discuss
elk-related issues and to identify possible science-based
solutions. The bill does not provide any guidance for how long
those conversations should take, what the outcome of the
conversations will be, or what specific scientific goals will
inform these discussions.
Prior and related legislation
AB 52 (Gatto), Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014, required lead
agencies under CEQA to begin consultation with a California
Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if
requested.
AB 1792 (Wood) Page 5
of ?
SB 685 (Evans) of 2011 proposed to authorize Native American
tribes to submit proposals for co-management of marine species
within marine protected areas designated under the Marine Life
Protection Act. That bill died in the Senate Natural Resources
and Water Committee.
AB 1729 (Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee), Chapter 285
Statutes of 2007, among other changes, revised and clarified
provisions allowing a member of a Native American tribe to
possess certain feathers, as defined, for tribal, spiritual, or
cultural purposes.
SUPPORT
Northern California Tribal Chairman's Association, including the
following tribes:
Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation (Sponsor)
Bear River Band Roherville
Big Lagoon Rancheria
Blue Lake Rancheria
Elk Valley Rancheria
Hoopa Valley Tribe
Karuk Tribe
Pitt River Tribe
Quartz Valley
Redding Rancheria
Resighini Rancheria
Susanville Rancheria
Trinidad Rancheria
Wiyot Tribe
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --