BILL ANALYSIS 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 904 HEARING DATE: March 23, 2010
AUTHOR: Hollingsworth URGENCY: No
VERSION: As Introduced CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Hunting: commercial hunting clubs.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
SB 904 would revisit the law pertaining to commercial hunting
clubs and the license fees paid by these entities to the
Department of Fish and Game (DFG).
Historically, the fee for commercial hunting club licenses was
$165 annually. In 2006, SB 1200 (Hollingsworth) was chaptered
and it authorized landowners who established commercial hunting
clubs on multiple parcels to submit one application for the
aggregated properties, although a separate fee would be assessed
for each club. (It should be noted that Senator Hollingsworth
objected to the provision about separate fees that was added in
the Assembly.) That bill also exempted from the fee those
landowners who lease their lands to a club but who do not
participate in the club's operation.
In 2009, AB 1423 (Berryhill, Tom) was chaptered. It
substantially revised the commercial hunting club license fees
by establishing a graduated license fee based on the number of
properties used by the club. The fee schedule requires payment
of $200 for one property, $500 for two to five properties,
$1,000 for six to ten properties, and $2,000 for 11 or more
properties. AB 1423 defined 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. AB 1423 added
exceptions to the commercial hunting club license, including
exemptions for lands enrolled in conservation programs, and
clubs at which entrance fees are less than $200 per person and
whose total receipts are less than $2,000 per year.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would eliminate the classification and license of
$2000 for 11 or more properties. Instead, it would create a new
classification for all clubs that operate 6 or more properties
and establish a fee for this classification of $1000. In other
words, the maximum fee for a commercial hunting license would be
$1000.
The bill would also prohibit the application of Sec. 713 of the
Fish and Game Code, a provision that applies an annual inflation
adjustment to many fees at the Department of Fish and Game.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The California Outdoor Heritage Alliance, a coalition of hunting
and fishing organizations, is in support. It states that SB 1200
created an unintended consequence by subjecting several hunting
clubs to fees amounting to several thousand dollars. COHA also
contends that the reduction in the maximum fee is "in line with"
DFG enforcement costs.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received
COMMENTS
1. The author does not believe that commercial hunting clubs
that aggregate more than 11 properties should be subject to a
fee double that of those who aggregate 6-10 properties.
Information provided by DFG notes that in 2009, it issued 72
licenses. It believes that 1000-1500 clubs should be licensed
but are not. For the last 3 years, DFG has been warning clubs
that they need to comply with the new fee structure established
in state law.
The department estimates that 10-20 clubs should pay $2000 fees.
It estimates that 20-30 clubs should pay $1000.
If one assumes the mid-points of both those ranges, this bill
would diminish fees paid to the department by approximately
$10,000 year without taking into account its enforcement and
education responsibilities or other changes in the law that
became effective last year.
As a result of the new fee structure in AB 1423, fees on single
properties were reduced from approximately $360 to $200 per
year. Fees on multiple properties were also reduced to what is
reflected in the current fee structure which eliminated separate
fees on all individual hunting clubs. Many large commercial
hunting clubs are highly successful, profitable business
ventures. The Committee may want to consider whether it thinks a
$2000 fee should be reduced in half.
2. The author also believes that the inflationary adjustment for
these fees should be eliminated in order to "simplify and
streamline" these fees.
The Committee should be aware that in recent years considerable
effort has been expended to avoid the need for legislation to
adjust DFG fees for increased costs. The inflation adjustment
provision has been used in several instances in legislation
approved by the Committee.
SUPPORT
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
California Sportsmen's Lobby
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California
Safari Club International
OPPOSITION
None Received