BILL ANALYSIS 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 1254 HEARING DATE: June 29, 2010
AUTHOR: T. Berryhill URGENCY: No
VERSION: June 15, 2010 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Fish and Game Commission: hunting.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Various provisions of the Fish and Game Code or the California
Constitution state that:
1. It is unlawful to enter any lands, including lands
temporarily inundated by waters, where signs forbidding
trespassing are displayed, for the purpose of discharging any
firearm or taking or destroying any mammal or bird without
written permission from the landowner.
2. The right of public access to navigable waters of the State
are protected under Article 10, Section 4 of the California
Constitution.
3. It is unlawful to take any mammal or bird or to discharge any
firearm on lands posted with "PRIVATE PROPERTY NO HUNTING" signs
that meet certain specifications.
4. The Fish and Game Commission shall hold no fewer than 10
regular meetings per calendar year, no more than 2 of which may
be held in Sacramento.
5. A course in hunter education, including provisions to
designate hunter instructors, is established in order to promote
hunter safety, principles of conservation, and sportsmanship.
6. The department is authorized to audit county expenditures
from its fish and wildlife propagation fund to determine
compliance with existing law.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would make several changes in the Fish and Game Code
relating to the above provisions of existing law.
1. It would reduce the mandatory meetings of the Commission
from 10 to 8, and the requirement of eight meetings would
be conditioned on available funding. The number of meetings
in Sacramento would increase from two to three.
2. Section 2017 would be repealed. Section 2017 prohibits
hunting, even by the landowner, if the landowner has posted
the property with "no hunting" signs, according to
information provided to the sponsor by the DFG. Section
2016 would remain in effect. Section 2016 prohibits entry
on lands marked with "no trespass" signs. Section 2016
would be amended to provide that it does not prohibit the
public from using navigable waters as provided by the
Constitution.
3. The hunter education and instructor program would be
amended to create an incentive to recruit and retain hunter
education instructors. The incentive would be to offer
enhanced access to hunting or a lottery for deer tags from
the existing quota of tags. The department would be
authorized to provide instructors with greater access
through existing programs such as the Private Lands
Management Program, the Shared Habitat Alliance for
Recreational Enhancement Program, or other cooperative
agreements with public agencies that own or administer
lands or waters. The department would also be allowed to
enter into cooperative agreements with landowners who seek
depredation permits that would be limited to feral pigs,
wild turkeys, or deer.
4. The auditing provisions of Sec. 13104 would be amended
to provide that the department may suspend expenditures or
seek reimbursement from county fish and wildlife
propagation funds if irregularities are demonstrated in an
audit.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
AB 1254 is sponsored by the California Outdoor Heritage
Alliance, and approximately 36 member organizations have joined
in its support letter. The purpose of the bill is to authorize
the Commission to adjust its meeting schedule to address funding
shortfalls, and to authorize the Department to offer special
hunting opportunities to qualified hunter education instructors.
The sponsors state that because of an increase in hunting in
some areas of the state, demand for qualified instructors has
outpaced supply.
Another purpose of the bill is to clarify the appropriate code
section regarding navigable waters. The sponsors believe the
bill, which codifies a constitutional provision, would provide a
centralized reference for hunters, fishermen, local law
enforcement authorities, and others who may rely on the Fish and
Game Code and who would not otherwise be aware of a
constitutional provision.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received
SUPPORT
California Outdoor Heritage Association (and 36 affiliated
organizations)
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California
The California Sportsman's Lobby
OPPOSITION
None Received