BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1179
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 4, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1179 (Hollingsworth) - As Amended: August 2, 2010
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 12-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to
designate two days per year as "Free Hunting Days."
Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes DFG to declare two days a year-one day during the
fall hunting season and another in the winter hunting
season-as Free Hunting Days.
2)Allows a person who meets the following conditions to hunt on
Free Hunting Days:
a) Is a California resident.
b) Has never held a California hunting license.
c) Has completed a DFG-approved hunter education course.
d) Has registered with DFG.
e) Has appropriate hunting tags, entry permits and other
specified documents.
f) Is accompanied by a person age 21 or older who has held
a California hunting license for at least three consecutive
years and who will accompany no more than one unlicensed
hunter in the field at a time.
3)Authorizes DFG to adopt additional minimal restrictions for
Free Hunting Days.
4)Delays the bill's implementation until after DFG's Automated
License Date System (ALDS) has been in operation for at least
one year.
FISCAL EFFECT
SB 1179
Page 2
1)Potential annual costs to DFG of an unknown amount, but likely
around $125,000, to deploy additional enforcement staff on
Free Hunting Days, many of who will receive overtime pay.
(Fish and Game Preservation Fund (FGPF))
2)Minor costs to DFG to administer program and, if it chooses,
to adopt additional minimum requirements for Free Hunting
Days.
3)Potential annual loss in revenue to DFG of an unknown but
likely minor amount to the extent residents participate in
Free Hunting Days instead of purchasing hunting licenses.
(FGPF)
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author describes this bill as allowing
residents who have never hunted to try the sport without
further commitment. The author contends some residents who
would otherwise not do so will become regular hunters and, as
a consequence, purchase hunting licenses and tags, the revenue
from which supports activities funded from the FGPF.
2)Background .
a) Regulation of Hunting and Fishing . Existing law
requires hunters to possess a hunting license to take birds
or mammals in California. To receive a hunting license, an
individual must complete a hunting education course, which
includes a minimum of 10 hours of coursework covering
firearm safety and handling, sportsmanship and ethics,
wildlife management and conservation, archery, black
powder, wildlife identification, game care, first aid, and
survival. According to the policy committee analysis, the
course requirement acts as a minimum age requirement for
hunting. This is because those seeking to complete the
hunting education course must be of an age to possess the
mental ability to complete the course.
Similarly, existing law requires possession of a fishing
license to take fish, though there are no education
requirements. Under current law, DFG may designate two
free fishing days per year.
SB 1179
Page 3
b) DFG's Automated License Date System . DFG's ALDS is, as
its name suggests, an automated, interconnected, electronic
system used by DFG to track and issue hunting and fishing
licenses. DFG reports it already uses ALDS, which will
eventually replace DFG's older paper-based licensing
system.
3)Support . This bill is supported by numerous hunting and
outdoor groups and the Sierra Club, who contend hunters are
stewards of California wildlife and its habitat.
4)Opposition . This bill is opposed by DFG, who argues the bill
could expose the state to liability by not fully addressing
hunter education requirements, requirements applicable to take
of certain species such as duck and upland game, and the lack
of an effective tracking system to prevent abuse. The latest
amendments to this bill seem to address many of DFG's
concerns; however, at the time this analysis was prepared, the
department was unable to indicate whether it will remove its
opposition in response to the amendments.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081