BILL ANALYSIS 1
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE
Senator Sheila Kuehl, Chair
2003-2004 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2146
AUTHOR:Leno
AMENDED: June 16, 2004
FISCAL: yes HEARING DATE:June 22, 2004
URGENCY: no CONSULTANT:Bill Craven
SUBJECT: Dungeness crab
Summary: This bill authorizes, but does not require, the Fish
and Game Commission to adopt regulations to ensure the
protection of the Dungeness crab resource and to establish an
advisory council, establishes a trap limitation in District 10
and south of District 10 of 250 traps per vessel, and makes
violation of that limitation a misdemeanor.
Existing Law: The Fish and Game Code regulates this commercial
resource with restrictions on the number and types of vessels
that may take crab, limits on the season, and limits on the type
of gear that may be used to take crab. This is a closed
fishery, meaning that new entrants must purchase an existing
license.
Currently, south of Mendocino County, the season opens on
November 15. North of Mendocino County, the season opens on
December 1.
Proposed Law: This bill authorizes, but does not require, the
Fish and Game Commission to adopt regulations to ensure the
protection of the Dungeness crab resource in California waters
north of San Francisco, and to establish an advisory council of
5 members who represent the geographic range of the fishery and
whose names are submitted by representatives of organizations
that represent Dungeness crab fishermen.
The bill contains numerous findings concerning the need to take
precautionary measures that establish the sustainability of the
resource. To that end, the bill imposes a limit of 250 crab
traps per season for each licensed vessel from Fish and Game
District 10 southward to the southernmost reach of the fishery.
District 10 ranges from the Sonoma-Mendocino line to the
northern boundary of San Mateo County. South of District 10 are
districts 17 (Santa Cruz and northern Monterey), District 18
(the remainder of Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara
counties), and District 19 (Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and
San Diego).
The bill also prohibits an owner of a vessel with a permit from
using that permit on another vessel owned by another person.
It also specifies that a violation of the 250-trap limit is
punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a fine of not more than
$5,000. The bill makes a technical change in the requirements
for removing crab traps from the ocean.
Arguments in Support: According to the sponsor, the Crab Boat
Owners Association, based in San Francisco, the measure would
help local boats resist the marketing power of larger boats that
come into the earlier southern season in California and then
harvest crab again in the later northern California season. The
sponsors believe that the provisions in the bill will prolong
processing jobs on land and harvesting jobs at sea because the
supply of crab will be steadier without an early glut caused by
the larger boats.
The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
considers the trap limit similar to those in Washington and
Alaska. It also supports a specific grant of authority to the
Commission to develop Dungeness crab regulations.
Ecotrust believes that if resources such as crab are to survive,
that fishing should be limited to small boat fleets and the
communities that support them. It supports policies that promote
equity, sustainability, and fleet diversity.
Natural Resources Defense Council supports the bill and notes
that the lack of a trap limit allows fishermen to increase their
effort with regard to this resource despite the limited entry
system. It notes that closures of other fisheries is creating
pressures on the crab resource.
Arguments in Opposition: The Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen's
Organization believes the bill would have an adverse fiscal
effect on its members.
Caito Fisheries in Ft. Bragg does not believe that an optimum
level for the crab fishery can ever be established, given the
cyclical nature of the fishery, the minimum size limit, and the
prohibition on take of females.
Other individual fishermen from northern California oppose the
measure as overtly preferential and an attempt to limit a
significant portion of this fishery "to an exclusive few."
Pacific Choice Seafood contends that the bill is intended to
limit competition and favor only the smallest operators.
Comments: The Committee has frequently declined to enter into
disputes over a particular fishery in order to allow the issue
to be more fully developed by the Commission. However, this is a
fishery where the Commission has not been granted any regulatory
authority. Thus, if the policy objectives of the bill are to be
achieved, they must be achieved legislatively.
The pilot project envisioned by the bill lasts only two years.
With the authority provided to it in the bill, the Commission
may choose to act after the two year period has passed, or it
may decide that the resource is adequately managed by existing
law.
SUPPORT:
Chinese Commercial Fishing Association
County of Sonoma
Crab Boat Owners Association, Inc.
Ecotrust
Fisherman's Marketing Association of Bodega Bay
Fisherman's Warf Waterfront Advisory Group
Frank's Fisherman's Supply Inc.
Golden Gate Restaurant Association
Harbor Masters and Port Captains
Natural Resources Defense Council
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
San Mateo County Harbor District
Scoma's Restaurant, Inc.
The Monterey Fish Market
The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
11 Individuals
OPPOSITION:
Caito Fisheries, Inc.
California Fisheries & Seafood Institute
California Shellfish Company
Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association, Inc.
Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen's Organization Inc.
Pacific Choice Seafood
2 Individuals