BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 606 HEARING DATE: June 14, 2011
AUTHOR: Gatto URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 7, 2011 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Hunting and fishing.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is authorized to contract
with public and private landowners for the purpose of fish and
wildlife habitat preservation and restoration. Within the
department, the Wildlife Conservation Board is authorized to
acquire real estate, including easements, for the benefit of
wildlife.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill directs DFG to allow donors of land to engage in
wildlife-dependent recreational activities, including hunting
and fishing, on lands acquired by the department that are
subject to either a wildlife easement or a contract for fish and
wildlife habitat preservation, restoration and enhancement.
This provision would not apply to existing wildlife conservation
easements or wildlife habitat contracts. This provision also
would not apply if wildlife dependent recreational activities
are prohibited on given lands either by the terms of the
easement or contract, or by existing legal requirements such as
the protection of threatened or endangered species. The bill
also states that a landowner retains the right to restrict
public access.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author contends this bill is intended to assure landowners
considering placing their land under contract to preserve
wildlife that the land owners and those with the landowner's
permission, will be able to continue to use the land for
wildlife-dependent activities, including bird watching, hiking,
camping, hunting and fishing, although only hunting and fishing
are specifically mentioned.
1
The author and supporters contend it is appropriate that the
bill specifically mention hunting and fishing. In their view,
this is appropriate because landowners who may consider placing
land under contract or easement often doubt that hunting and
fishing will continue on the land once it is subject to contract
or easement, despite landowners' wishes, and also because fees
paid by hunters and anglers fund much of DFG's conservation
activities, such as creation of conservation easements and
contracts.
This bill is supported by several groups that advocate for the
interests of hunters and anglers and the wildlife and habitat
upon which they depend. The bill's sponsor, the California
Outdoor Heritage Alliance, a coalition of sportsmen's
organizations and related businesses, believes that the bill
clarifies that private landowners who voluntarily agree to
participate in a DFG-managed wildlife program through easements
or contracts.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
Several animal welfare groups oppose the bill largely on the
basis that it may be unnecessary or that it could interfere with
DFG management of lands entrusted to it by a landowner. These
groups suggest that the requirement to allow hunting and fishing
and other recreational activities decreases DFG's regulatory
flexibility.
COMMENTS
Under existing law, DFG generally permits wildlife-dependent
activities, including hunting and fishing to occur on lands
subject to wildlife conservation easements and contracts.
However, the law does not require that DFG permit such
activities on these lands. The sponsors and author believe that
prospective donors want to ensure that their personal hunting
and fishing practices may be preserved if they enter into
contracts or easements with the department. Public access for
hunting or non-consumptive activities would be determined on a
case-by-case basis as it is now.
Staff has discussed technical and clarifying amendments with the
sponsors and the author which are reflected below. The first
amendment changes the word "permit" to "allow" to clarify that
the bill would not require DFG to implement a permitting
process. The second is to strike the phrase "wildlife-dependent
recreational activities, including, but not limited to hunting
2
and fishing" and replace that phrase with "compatible
recreational activities" which does two things: It more closely
tracks similar existing language in Sec. 1348 of the Fish and
Game Code, and it provides a measure of discretion and
flexibility to DFG about the activities it and the donor should
allow.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
Page 2, line 5, delete "permit" and add "allow"
AMENDMENT 2
Page 2, line 5, delete "wildlife-dependent recreational
activities" and replace with "compatible recreational
activities"
SUPPORT
California Association of Firearm Retailers
California Association of Firearms Retailers
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
California Waterfowl
Outdoor Sportsman's Coalition of California
Safari Club International
The California Sportsman's Lobby
OPPOSITION
PAW PAC
PEACE
Public Interest Coalition
3