BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 536 HEARING DATE: April 28, 2009
AUTHOR: Hollingsworth URGENCY: No
VERSION: As Introduced CONSULTANT: Estella Cisneros
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Commercial Hunting Clubs
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 procedure for clubs with multiple
property leases, the amount of the license fee that is adjusted
for inflation, conditions for transferring a license, the
license term time, and license revocation.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would repeal the entire contents of Article 2,
beginning with Section 3240.5, of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of
Division 4 of Fish and Game code.
It would repeal the provisions governing commercial hunting
clubs, thereby removing all requirements to obtain commercial
hunting club licenses.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "SB 536 seeks to delete the provisions
of the Fish and Game Code that pertain to commercial hunting
club licenses to allow the Department of Fish and Game to better
1
utilize existing funding. With fewer than 200 enforcement
officers in the field, the Department is severely limited in its
ability to protect California's fish and wildlife resources. By
eliminating this unnecessary and often duplicative license,
precious resources can be redirected towards higher priority
enforcement needs."
Other supporters argue that charging an access fee to enter
privately owned property should not be a landowner activity
requiring a commercial hunting club license and that this kind
of licensing and oversight is unnecessary and unjustified.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received
COMMENTS
Related Bills: The Committee may wish to consider whether AB
1423 (Berryhill) may be a more preferable approach to addressing
the issue of commercial hunting club licenses. AB 1423 would
restructure and augment current hunting club licenses
regulations.
It would require the Department of Fish and Game to adopt
regulations for the management and control of wildlife-dependent
recreational activities subject to the Shared Habitat Alliance
for Recreational Enhancement program, which was previously
established to encourage private landowners to voluntarily make
their land available to the public for wildlife-dependent
recreational activities, which includes hunting. It would
require a report on the status of the program as well as data on
the types of activities preferred by users of the program. It
would also make changes to the funding sources for the program.
SB 1423 would also expand the list of exempted property owners,
which would now include landowners who charge less than $100 and
who earn less than $1,000 total; property that is used for an
official field dog trial event; property that falls under the
Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement; a
domesticated game bird hunting club; a domesticated migratory
game bird shooting area; property used in conjunction with
private wildlife habitat enhancement and management program;
property subject to wildlife conservation or agricultural
easement or enrolled in a habitat protection or enhancement
program.
2
SB 1423 also specifies what must be on the form that is
submitted to obtain a license, including the name of the club
and the ownership and the signature and title of the
application. Lastly, it would provide a sliding scale payment
schedule dependent on the number of properties used by a club.
It would range from $200 for one property to $2,000 for 11 or
more properties.
The Committee may be concerned that repealing all oversight
would mean that commercial hunting clubs would receive no
possibility of review by the department. The Committee may
conclude that the issues with regard to the current law should
be addressed via amendments, not necessarily repealing the
entire provision.
SUPPORT
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
Safari Club International
OPPOSITION
None Received
3