BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 457 Hearing Date: April 14,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Nielsen | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |April 6, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Katharine Moore |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Bobcat Protection Act of 2013
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Bobcats are classified as non-game mammals in California and may
be hunted or trapped, subject to certain restrictions, with the
purchase of appropriate licenses and tags, as specified. Bobcat
pelts must be tagged, and cannot be sold or transported without
a specified shipping tag.
In 2013, the Legislature passed the Bobcat Protection Act of
2013 (AB 1213, Bloom, c. 748, Statutes of 2013)(Act). News
stories contemporaneous with the passage of AB 1213 reported
that bobcat trapping was increasing due, in part, to a booming
trade in bobcat pelts. Reports indicate a single bobcat pelt can
now sell for $600 with higher prices paid for exceptional pelts.
During 2014, reports indicate that a recent spike in prices
resulted in pelts selling for as much as $2,100 each.
AB 1213 prohibited the trapping of bobcats in and around Joshua
Tree National Park and on private lands without the explicit
permission of the landowner. Additionally, it directed the Fish
and Game Commission (Commission) to:
start its regulatory process in 2014 to prohibit bobcat
trapping adjacent to protected areas (such as state parks)
where bobcat trapping is banned. The boundaries established
by the commission are required to use readily identifiable
features, such as highways or other major roads.
consider, starting in 2016, whether additional prohibitions on
SB 457 (Nielsen) Page 2
of ?
bobcat trapping in/around conservation areas are warranted,
and
set trapping fees to cover the costs to the Department of Fish
and Wildlife (Department) and commission of the trapping
program, including enforcement.
AB 1213 also included numerous relevant legislative findings,
and did not alter trapping for depredation purposes (e.g. pest
control).
Although somewhat behind schedule, the commission is in the
process of developing the regulations to implement AB 1213, and
final action is likely by the fall of 2015. The commission will
receive an update on AB 1213 implementation at its April 9, 2015
hearing. Supporting materials for that hearing note that:
the department has developed a proposal that includes proposed
boundaries on bobcat trapping consistent with existing law
based upon readily-identifiable features, including major
roads and highways,
the regulatory proposal will include an option to implement a
statewide ban on bobcat trapping per the commission's request
(see the commission's December 3, 2014 hearing actions), and
roughly $600K in upfront and $342K in ongoing annual program
costs are anticipated, and emphasize that enforcement costs
continue even if a statewide trapping ban is imposed.
Letters from trappers to the commission recommend limited (one
quarter mile) buffer zones around protected areas and the use of
other landmarks besides roads to delineate boundaries of no
trapping zones.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would expand the definition of readily identifiable
boundaries in the act to include non-major roads, landmarks, or
geographic positions, such as those provided by the Global
Positioning System (GPS). There are additional technical
corrections.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, the bill "clarifies the list of
suggested items that the [commission] may consider while
delineating boundaries of areas where bobcat trapping is
prohibited." The author continues that "the [commission] is
only considering major highways and roads while drawing
SB 457 (Nielsen) Page 3
of ?
boundaries; the consequences of not applying other 'readily
identifiable features' are boundary proposals that ban trapping
in nearly 60 percent of California."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The Center for Biological Diversity and others state, "[b]obcats
should be protected both for their intrinsic value and because
they are an essential part of the ecosystems they inhabit.
Millions of people visit California's parks and wildlands each
year for the purpose of viewing wildlife, including bobcats, and
such visitation contributes well over 3 billion dollars annually
to the state's economy. As such, the conservation and fiscal
interests of the California public who overwhelmingly support
the protection of bobcats surely outweigh the private profit
interests of the few dozen trappers serving foreign fashion
markets who would benefit from SB 457."
They continue that "SB 457 - by changing the requirements of a
rulemaking process that is already underway and is statutorily
required to be completed before the changes of SB 457 would ever
take effect - is untimely, unnecessary, and ultimately serves no
purpose but to undermine a legislatively-directed rulemaking.
Moreover, substantively, the bill would replace a clear standard
for the setting of non-trapping buffer zones with one that is
completely ambiguous, thereby undermining implementation and
enforcement. SB 457 lacks any criteria regarding the size of
the required buffers and, consequently, would allow buffers that
are potentially so narrow as to be ecologically meaningless,
permitting trappers to kill bobcats near the boundaries of
national and state parks and thus defeating the very purpose of
the protections of AB 1213."
The Center adds that "[h]ighways were chosen to delimit the
buffer, not just because they are easy to identify and
understand, but also because it is an unfortunate reality in the
modern world that highways and other major roads act as major
impediments to wildlife movement. The bobcats that inhabit
Joshua Tree and other national parks, wander freely out of the
parks' boundaries, but their home ranges rarely extend across
busy highways that are nearly impossible for these animals to
safely cross. Consequently, in most circumstances a
highway-delimited no-trapping zone largely can protect a park's
bobcat population." According to the Center, "[d]uring the
legislative process for AB 1213, trappers suggested amendments
SB 457 (Nielsen) Page 4
of ?
that would replace the highway buffers with ones based on [a]
short measured distance from park boundaries" which were
rejected, and that SB 457 "would amend the law to allow the
trappers' previously rejected proposals to be retroactively
implemented through a future commission rulemaking process."
Additionally, the Humane Society of the United States states
that bobcats rarely pose a public safety threat, and play an
important predatory role in the ecosystem.
COMMENTS
Bill is premature . The commission's regulatory development to
implement AB 1213 is still underway. While one of the options
proposed by the department to the commission may prohibit bobcat
trapping in many parts of the state, over 70% of the commercial
bobcat take, almost entirely by trapping, occurred in just five
counties in the 2013 - 2014 hunting year (Inyo, Kern, Modoc, San
Bernardino and Siskiyou). These counties appear, in whole or in
part, to be included in the draft proposed bobcat trapping zones
from the December 3, 2014 commission hearing. Additionally,
should SB 457 become law, it could result in increased costs to
the state should the commission be forced to re-open its
regulatory proceedings.
The use of major roads as boundaries . It is not unusual for
major roadways to be used in the establishment of different
zones for the purposes of the commission or the department. A
department presentation to the commission at its December 3,
2014 meeting noted that the use of GPS technology, while
offering some perceived advantages, was contrary to statute and
also presented potentially difficult enforcement issues. In
contrast, the use of major roadways provided clearly defined
zones that were easier to enforce, although more portions of the
state were closed to bobcat trapping. The specific text of AB
1213 states that "readily identifiable features, such as
highways or other major roads, such as those delineated for
Joshua Tree National Park in subdivision (a)." The description
of boundaries for Joshua Tree National Park uses state highways,
interstates and their intersections. Other features are not
used.
Recent bobcat hunting and trapping data . The most recent data
(for the 2013 - 2014 year) show that trappers took almost 1300
bobcats and sport hunters took about 310. Of the approximately
SB 457 (Nielsen) Page 5
of ?
822 trapping licenses issued in 2014, almost 600 of them were
for pest control, not recreational trapping.
Cost recovery . The current trapping license fees for bobcats
raised approximately $90,000 in 2014 according to department
data (trapping licenses are about $115 for residents). This is
about a factor of 6 - 7 less than the anticipated start-up costs
for the bobcat trapping program as well as a factor of 3 - 4
less than anticipated annual ongoing costs.
Bobcat population data . As noted in AB 1213's legislative
findings, good bobcat population data in the state are not
available. The Governor's signing message asked the Legislature
to work with the department "to secure funding to survey our
bobcat population." This has not yet occurred. The author
argues in his background material for this bill that the survey
should be completed, although this bill does not do so.
SUPPORT
San Diego County Wildlife Federation
OPPOSITION
Animal Legal Defense Fund
California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators
Center for Biological Diversity
Defenders of Wildlife
Environmental Protection Information Center
The Humane Society of the United States
Marin Humane Society
Project Coyote
Sierra Club California
-- END --