BILL ANALYSIS 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 1423 HEARING DATE: July 6, 2009
AUTHOR: Tom Berryhill URGENCY: No
VERSION: June 30, 2009 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Commercial hunting clubs: Shared Habitat Alliance for
Recreational Enhancement program: interference with hunting.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Current law requires that every person in possession or control,
including a renter or lessee, of property where a fee is charged
to hunt birds or mammals must obtain a commercial hunting club
license. Exemptions to this requirement include hunting clubs or
programs under other provisions of the Fish and Game Code; any
person who receives less than $50 per entrant and receives less
than a total of $500 in fees per year; and any landowner who
rents or leases their land to a hunting club and is not involved
in the operation of the club.
Current law establishes a licensing procedure for clubs with
multiple property leases, the amount of the license fee which is
adjusted for inflation, conditions for transferring a license,
the term of the license, and license revocation.
The Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement Program
was established in the Fish and Game Code in 1993. It allows
landowners to make their lands available to the public for
hunting, fishing, and recreational activities in exchange for
compensation under specified conditions.
It is currently unlawful to interfere with lawful hunting
activities. A violation of this section is an infraction,
punishable by a fine of not less than $100 and not more than
$500 for a first
violation, and not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for a
second violation.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill modifies three provisions in the Fish and Game Code:
It modifies commercial hunt club licensure requirements by
adding several exemptions and adding a fee schedule; it modifies
the Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement Program
(SHARE); and it makes it unlawful to interfere with a field
trial or hunting dog training. It also would make numerous
technical changes.
1. Commercial Hunting Clubs.
The proposed fee schedule would require payment of $200 for one
property, $500 for two to five properties, $1,000 for six to ten
properties, and $2,000 for eleven or more properties. The bill
defines property for these purposes as a number of contiguous
parcels held by an owner or
combination of owners and held out for a common purpose.
Current law contains many exemptions for this license. This bill
adds a few more, including exemptions for lands enrolled in
conservation programs, lands covered by an agricultural or
conservation easement, officially sanctioned field dog trials,
and clubs at which entrance fees are less than $200 per person
and whose total receipts is less than $2,000 per year.
The fee schedule would require payment of $200 for one property,
$500 for two to five properties, $1,000 for six to ten
properties, and $2,000 for eleven or more properties. The bill
defines property for these purposes as a number of contiguous
parcels held by an owner or
combination of owners and held out for a common purpose.
2. SHARE Program.
This bill deletes the requirement for the Fish and Game
Commission (FGC) to verify sufficient public interest before
initiating the program. It switches responsibility from the FGC
to the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) for purposes of
adopting regulations and imposes a reporting requirement on the
department to inform the commission on the status of the
program. It modifies the requirement that lands be included in
the program that are not open to hunting for participation of
the nonhunting public, and instead requires DFG, to the extent
possible, to include lands that permit multiple
wildlife-dependent recreational activities for participation of
the general public. The bill would also authorize compensation
to landowners of $50 per public participant per day or the
current authorized payment of $30 per acre.
3. Interference with hunting:
The bill extends the prohibition on interfering with legal
hunting activities to include interfering with field trials and
related dog training activities. It extends the definition of
"interfering with" to include blocking access to lands without
authority of the landowner or lessee, and placing food on lands
as bait to prevent legal hunting. It also increases the penalty
for interfering with lawful hunting activities from an
infraction to a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more
than $1,000 or six months in jail.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author first wants to address an unexpected consequence of
SB 1200, passed in 2006, that mistakenly imposed a commercial
hunting club fee on each parcel owned by a participating
landowner instead of a single fee for each commercial club. This
bill would replace that language with a fee schedule.
Additionally, according to the author, the proposed changes in
the SHARE program would enable California to be eligible for
increased federal funding through the farm bill.
The enhanced criminal provisions and new definitions are
necessary, the author states, because of recent cases of hunter
harassment. In addition to the penalty increases, the bill would
expand the definition of "interfere with" to include such
actions as placing gates or barricades to block public access to
lands without the authorization of the landowner.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The California Federation for Animal Legislation is opposed for
unspecified reasons.
COMMENTS
1. The commercial hunting club license aspect of this bill was
also addressed in SB 536 (Hollingsworth) which the author made a
two-year bill. It would have completely repealed the fee
provisions for operation of a commercial hunting club.
2. While the SHARE program is intended to increase the private
acreage that is available for hunting and other recreational
activities, the success and potential growth of the program
could create friction with local governments that may have valid
ordinances restricting the discharge of firearms that have
little or no effect on the state's regulation of hunting. While
state law generally prohibits the discharge of firearms within
150 yards of a structure, local ordinances may impose a greater
distance for local public safety reasons. (These local
ordinances remain valid exercises of local public safety
regulation under California case law and the proposed AB 979.)
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT:
This situation could be remedied by amending the bill on
page 3, line 26, at the end of the sentence, by adding:
"through means that are consistent with applicable law."
SUPPORT
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
OPPOSITION
California Federation for Animal Legislation
1 Individual