BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 749
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 20, 2005 

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                   Judy Chu, Chair

                  AB 749 (Leno) - As Introduced:  February 17, 2005 

          Policy Committee:                              Water, Parks &  
          Wildlife     Vote:                            8-5

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          Yes    Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill establishes restrictions and increased penalties  
          related to the commercial Dungeness crab (DC) fishery.   
          Specifically, this bill:

          1)Allows the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to adopt regulations  
            to ensure protection of the DC fishery and allows the FGC to  
            establish a DC Advisory Committee.

          2)Prohibits a DC fisherman from using more than 250 traps during  
            a season, except along the north coast above Mendocino.

          3)Requires the FGC, no sooner than March 15, 2008, to consider  
            recommendations from the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and  
            DC vessel permit holders on whether to increase or decrease  
            the 250 trap limit, terminate the limit after June 30, 2008,  
            or make any other related changes to the limit.

          4)Makes it a misdemeanor with a maximum $5,000 fine or six  
            months in jail, or both, for the first violation of the 250  
            trap limit.  A second violation results in the permanent  
            revocation of the violator's DC permit and a revocation of his  
            or her commercial fishing license for a minimum of five years.  
             (The standard misdemeanor for commercial fishing violations  
            is a maximum $1,000 fine or six months in jail, or both.)

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Minor potential costs, if any, to the DFG to develop or modify  
            DC fishery regulations and to appoint members to the DC  
            Advisory Committee.  (Fish and Game Preservation Fund (FGPF).)








                                                                  AB 749
                                                                  Page  2


          2)Moderate ongoing costs, about $300,000 annually starting FY  
            2006-07, to the DFG to assign additional wardens to enforce  
            the DC trap limitation.  A small portion of these costs may be  
            offset by revenue generated by increased DC permit fees, if  
            the FGC uses its authority to do so.  (FGPF.)

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale  .  The author contends that large, corporate DC  
            fishing vessels capable of putting up to 1,000 traps out  
            during a season, are effectively crowding out smaller,  
            family-owned DC vessels (based primarily in San Francisco)  
            from the central coast DC fishery.  The 250 trap limit is  
            designed to limit how many Dungeness crab can be caught by the  
            large vessels and to better ensure crab will be available to  
            the smaller vessels.

           2)Dungeness Crab  is unique to the North American west coast,  
            with landings brought in from Santa Barbara to Alaska.  Take  
            is limited to mature males.  The DC fishery is considered to  
            be well-managed and is perhaps the most sustainable fishery  
            along the coast.  

          3)Duration of Trap Limit  .  While the bill requires the FGC to  
            consider terminating the 250 trap limit after June 30, 2008,  
            there is no requirement in the bill that the trap limit ever  
            be terminated.  

          4)Prior Legislation  .  AB 2146 (Leno) of 2004, a measure  
            substantially similar to this bill, was vetoed by the  
            governor.  
           
           Analysis Prepared by  :    Steve Archibald / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081