BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2755
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 26, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 2755
(Gallagher) - As Amended April 11, 2016
SUBJECT: Agriculture: bees: civil remedies
KEY ISSUE: In order to better protect california's disappearing
but vitally important honeybee population, should a person who
wrongfully and willfully steals, removes, kills, or destroys
bees be subject to civil damages equal to three times the value
of the bees?
SYNOPSIS
This measure addresses a serious problem. A troubling decline
in California's honeybee population has raised the value of bees
which, in turn, has led to a corresponding rise in beehive
thefts. To cite just one example, thieves in Butte County stole
over 500 beehives in two separate incidents over a two-week
period. The impacts of these crimes go beyond the affected
beekeeper. Honeybees not only produce an important agricultural
product, they also pollinate wild and domestic plants as well as
many farm crops. These plants, in turn, provide food for birds
and mammals, including the human variety. Stealing bees is
already a crime, whether viewed as grand theft or petty theft,
but apparently the existing criminal penalties are not an
effective deterrent. As one Riverside County Sheriff observed,
bee theft is hard to prove. This especially true in light of
AB 2755
Page 2
the fact that prosecutors must meet the criminal standard of
"beyond a reasonable doubt." Local district attorneys may be
reluctant to prosecute an action unless they are certain that
this burden can be met. This bill, therefore, would permit a
person who is harmed to seek treble damages in a civil action
for the wrongful and willful taking of a beehive, the wrongful
and willful removal of bees from their hive, or the wrongful and
willful killing of bees without the consent of the owner or the
person lawfully in possession of the bees. This bill is
sponsored by the California State Beekeepers Association and is
supported by the Sierra Club and several farm groups. In 2008,
a similar measure (AB 2849, Evans) passed unanimously in both
houses of the Legislature, only to be vetoed by then-Governor
Schwarzenegger. In that year the Governor vetoed hundreds of
bills that he deemed "less significant," not because he
necessarily disagreed with them, but because of his dispute with
the Legislature during a 2008 budget impasse.
Although there is no opposition to this bill, representatives of
the pest control industry have expressed concerns about the
bill, fearing that it could somehow subject them to treble
damages when they are hired to eradicate bee colonies. However,
for reasons stated in the analysis, this fear does not seem very
well-founded, given that the treble damages only apply to
"wrongful and willing" actions done without the consent of the
owner or other person in lawful possession of the bees. This
bill passed out of the Assembly Agriculture Committee on a 9-0
vote, with one member not voting.
SUMMARY: Permits a person who is harmed by the stealing or
killing of bees, or the destruction of beehives, to recover
treble damages in a civil action. Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes findings and declarations about the commercial and
environmental benefits of beekeeping, the drastic reduction in
the state's bee populations, and the rising number of thefts
AB 2755
Page 3
of bees and beehives in California, and states the intent of
the Legislature to create civil remedies for wrongfully
taking, possessing, harboring, transporting, destroying, or
vandalizing bees.
2)Provides that in a civil action for the wrongful and willful
taking, possessing, harboring, or transporting of a beehive,
for the wrongful and willful removal of bees from their
beehive, or for the wrongful and willful killing or destroying
of bees without the consent of the owner or the person
lawfully in possession of those bees, the damage caused to the
plaintiff shall be three times the value of the bees at the
time of the taking, possessing, harboring, transporting,
destroying, or vandalizing of the bees, plus an amount in fair
compensation for the time and money properly expended by the
plaintiff in recovering or replacing the bees.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Regulates, under the Apiary Protection Act, bee management and
beekeepers and establishes enforcement mechanisms and
penalties for violations of the Act. (Food and Agriculture
Code Sections 29000-29321.)
2)Defines "grand theft" as any theft where the money, labor, or
real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding $400,
or when the property is taken from the person of another.
However, provides that theft of certain agricultural and
aqua-cultural products shall be deemed grand theft if their
value exceeds $100. Provides that theft in other cases is
petty theft, and is punishable as a misdemeanor. (Penal Code
Sections 487 (a)-(c), 488, and 490.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed
AB 2755
Page 4
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: Though little known beyond the agricultural and
environmental communities, California has witnessed a troubling
decline in its honeybee population. Declining numbers has
raised the market value of bees and beehives, and this in turn
has created a powerful incentive for bee theft. According to
the California State Beekeepers Association, there have been
1,734 thefts reported to the Association since January 1, 2016.
Honeybees not only produce an important agricultural product,
they also play a vital role in the pollination of many important
farm crops, and they also pollinate many wild and domestic
plants that provide food for other critters. Stealing bees,
like stealing anything else, is a crime; but the crime is hard
to prove and the current criminal penalties do not provide an
adequate deterrent. This bill would entitle a person who is
harmed by the wrongful taking, possessing, harboring,
transporting, destroying, killing, or vandalizing of bees to
bring a civil action and recover treble damages against the
thief.
The Advantages of Civil Actions: While stealing bees is already
a crime under the Penal Code, whether viewed as grand or petty
theft, the criminal penalties are apparently an ineffective
deterrent. As one Riverside County Sheriff observed, bee theft
is often very difficult to prove.
( http://abc7.com/news/bee-hive-thefts-on-the-rise-in-riverside-co
unty--/229261/ ). Moreover, prosecutors must meet the criminal
law's highest burden of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Local district attorneys may be reluctant to prosecute an action
unless they are certain that this burden can be met. In light
of the inadequacy of criminal penalties, this bill would
appropriately allow a person who is harmed to bring a civil
action for wrongful and willful taking of a beehive, the
wrongful and willful removal of bees from their hive, or the
wrongful and willful killing or destroying of bees without the
consent of the owner or the person lawfully in possession of the
AB 2755
Page 5
bees. The bill would specify that the damage caused to the
plaintiff in such a civil action would be three times the value
of the bees at the time of the wrongful and willful act. Not
only would treble economic damages provide a stronger deterrent,
but a plaintiff in a civil action would only need to meet the
civil law's "preponderance of evidence" standard - a much easier
burden than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable
doubt." Perhaps most importantly, a civil action allows the
injured party to engage in self-help by lawful judicial means,
instead of relying upon public prosecutors who might not view
bee theft as a top priority.
Concerns brought up by the pest control industry may be
exaggerated. Although it has not submitted a formal letter of
opposition or concern, the Pest Control Operators of California
informed the Committee that it has concerns about the bill and
would like an exemption for its industry. Specifically, the
pest control industry fears that it could be subject to the
civil action and treble damages if it were to kill or eradicate
bees in the normal course of its business operations. However,
this does not seem likely. The bill quite clearly states that
treble damages only apply to the "wrongful and willful" killing
of bees, and it does not apply to anyone acting with the consent
of the owner or any other person in lawful possession of the
bees. It is difficult to see how a pest control company that
was hired to eradicate bees would be deemed to have committed a
"wrongful and willful" act. In addition, unless the pest
control company killed bees of someone other than the person who
hired the company, it would have acted with the consent of the
owner or person in lawful possession of the bees and thus would
not be liable under this bill. It is conceivable that a pest
control company could be hired to eradicate pests on a
neighboring person's property and accidentally kill the bees
next door. But by definition an accidental killing is not a
"willful" killing. If a pest control company negligently killed
bees on neighboring property, it would not be liable for the
treble damages under this bill, although it would be, and
probably should be, liable for actual damages proximately caused
AB 2755
Page 6
by its negligence.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Farm Bureau Federation
(Farm Bureau) supports this bill because it will "help create
further disincentives against theft." The Farm Bureau notes
that "California agriculture thrives with the help of managed
honeybees," estimating the value of honeybee pollination
services at "between $4 and $11 billion." The Farm Bureau
argues that the treble damages provided for in this bill are not
unreasonable, noting that Food and Agriculture Code Section
21855 allows a victim of cattle theft to recover four times the
market value of the animals.
The California Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF), a statewide
organization that represents both farmers and non-farm urban
residents who support sustainable food and farm policies,
support AB 2755 because it will "protect the beekeepers who make
pollination possible." While CAFF deplores all theft from
farming operations, they "find it particularly galling that
theft of beehives is increasing at the same time as bees
themselves are under such stress from a variety of sources."
CAFF concludes by reminding us that "many crops in California
rely on pollinators to make production possible."
California Citrus Mutual (CCM) supports this bill. Even though
the citrus industry does not require pollination, many citrus
growers have arrangements with commercial beekeepers to allow
hives to be placed adjacent to citrus groves. According to CCM,
in most cases "there is no monetary or cultural benefit to this
arrangement for the citrus grower. It is an act of good will by
one segment of agriculture to another." Beekeepers benefit from
this arrangement as honeybees have access to citrus nectar. CCM
claims that agricultural crime is on the rise in general, and
that bee theft is just one aspect of this problem. CCM applauds
this bill and its author for addressing "this serious issue and
for castling light on the greater challenge of agricultural
AB 2755
Page 7
crime and theft in California."
The Sierra Club supports this bill because it will provide a
greater deterrent to vandals engaged in the willful destruction
and killing of bees. The Sierra Club notes that bees play "a
significant role in the pollination of fruits and nuts and
California produces 20,000,000 pounds of them each year. Bees
are dying at an alarming rate due to colony collapse,
pesticides, and parasites. This poses a major threat to the
species as well as our economy."
Related Legislation: AB 2849 (Evans, 2008) would have also
provided for treble damages recoverable by a plaintiff in a
civil action for the wrongful taking, possessing, harboring, or
transporting of a beehive, for the wrongful removal of bees from
their beehive, or for the wrongful killing or destroying of
bees. Despite the fact that AB 2849 did not receive a single
negative vote in any committee or floor vote, the bill was
vetoed by then-Governor Schwarzenegger, one of hundreds of "less
significant" bills that the Governor refused to sign during the
budget impasse in 2008.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Beekeepers Association (sponsor)
California Citrus Mutual
AB 2755
Page 8
California Farm Bureau Federation
Community Alliance with Family Farmers
Sierra Club
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334