BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1162
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1162 (Chesbro) - As Amended: April 11, 2011
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 12-0
Judiciary 9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill increases civil and criminal penalty amounts for
various poaching violations.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time costs to the Fish and Game Commission, likely in the
range of $50,000 to $500,000, to develop regulations,
including establishment of a trophy designation and monetary
value based on the size or related characteristics of the
animal poached and a market price for bear parts. (Fish and
Game Preservation Fund (FGPF).)
2)Potential revenue increase to the Department of Fish and Game
(DFG), ranging in the tens of thousands to hundreds of
thousands of dollars, resulting from increased civil and
criminal penalties. (DFG reports it anticipates very little
revenue increase as a result of this bill, in part because the
department so rarely exercises its civil penalty authority.)
(FGPF.)
SUMMARY (continued)
Specifically, this bill:
3)Increases, to $40,000 from $10,000, the amount of the civil
penalty DFG may impose for a violation of the Fish and Game
Code.
4)Establishes a criminal violation and fine, ranging from $5,000
AB 1162
Page 2
to $40,000, or up to one year imprisonment, for any person who
knowingly and illegally takes a trophy deer, elk, bighorn
sheep or wild turkey out of season, with the aid of artificial
light, with the use of bait or in a way that results in
unnecessary and wanton waste of game.
5)Subjects to a fine, equivalent to the greater of $10,000 or 10
times the market value of bear parts, any person who uses a
signal-emitting device (such as a cell phone, radio, or
satellite communication device) in conjunction with the take
of a bear for the illegal sale of bear parts.
6)Requires the Fish and Game Commission to adopt regulations to
implement the new criminal penalty provisions on trophy
animals and the bear-take fine, including establishment of a
trophy designation and monetary value based on the size or
related characteristics of the animal poached and a market
price for bear parts.
7)Directs all revenue from the criminal violations for
trophy-taking of deer, elk, antelope and bighorn sheep or for
bear-take violations to the Big Game Management Account and
all revenue from the criminal violations for trophy-taking
wild turkey to the Upland Game Bird Account, each of which is
located in the Fish and Game Preservation Fund (FGPF).
8)Directs 50% of any fine collected for the criminal taking of
trophy animals or bears to the county in which the violation
occurred, to be used to reimburse costs incurred by the
district attorney or city attorney investigating and
prosecuting the violation.
9)Authorizes the department to suspend or permanently revoke the
hunting license of a person convicted of a poaching violation
described in this bill.
10)Authorizes a judge to order the confiscation of the hunting
equipment and related devices of a person convicted of a
poaching violation described in this bill.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author contends that illegal poaching is on
the rise and that existing penalties for this activity are
inadequate to deter poachers who, in some cases, can make tens
AB 1162
Page 3
of thousands of dollars.
2)Background.
a) Poaching Is Punishable by Fine and Imprisonment.
Existing law specifies penalties for violations of the Fish
and Game Code (FGC).
i) Noncommercial Violations. Violation of most
provisions of the FGC is a misdemeanor, punishable by a
fine of not more than $1,000 ans/for imprisonment in
county jail for not more than six months. Certain
violations, such as the unlawful taking of wildlife
within a game refuge, are subject to a penalty of not
more than $2,000 and up to one year in jail. Other
violations carry penalties that range from $250 for a
first violation to $2,000 and /or up to one year in jail
for subsequent violations.
ii) Commercial Violations. Most violations of the FGC
for commercial purposes-meaning for profit or personal
gain-are punishable by a fine of not more than $30,000 or
up to one year in jail, or both the fine and
imprisonment, with additional penalties for subsequent
violations. The law does not prescribe minimum penalty
amounts. An exception is illegal abalone fishing, which
is punishable by a minimum fine of $15,000 and not more
than $40,000, up to one year in jail, or by both the fine
and penalty.
iii) Suspension of License. The law prohibits anyone
convicted of unlawfully taking wildlife for commercial
purposes from hunting or fishing for a minimum of one
year. Anyone with three or more convictions within five
years for the unlawful taking or possession of fish,
reptiles or amphibians is prohibited from taking any
fish, reptiles or amphibians for a minimum of three
years.
a) Poaching on the Rise. According to DFG, poaching cases
have increased as the economy has declined. On the
commercial black market, certain species can be sold to
consumers, restaurants and retailers at a profit that
exceeds established penalties, for which there are no
mandatory minimums. According to DFG, between 2005 and
AB 1162
Page 4
2007, poaching-related violations increased by 25%, and
between 2003 and 2009 poaching violations issued by DFG
increased from 6,538 violations to 15,627. Notably, these
violations occurred as the number of wardens patrolling the
state declined.
1)Few Wardens Patrolling a Big, Wild State. Fish and Game
wardens make up DFG's law enforcement staff. They enforce
fish, wildlife, and habitat protection laws. Like other sworn
peace officers, wardens secure and serve search warrants, make
arrests, and testify in court. Wardens sometimes perform their
duties alone in the field and, like some other peace officers,
may be armed.
DFG recently reported there were just over 300 filled warden
positions, including about 100 supervisory positions, and
about a dozen warden cadets. Groups representing the wardens
report that California has significantly fewer wardens on
patrol than do other comparably large states with significant
wilderness areas, such as Florida and Texas.
1)Related Legislation. AB 708 (Huffman, Chapter 290, Statutes
of 2009) increased poaching fines. The bill passed the
Assembly 78-0 and the Senate 35-0.
2)Support . This bill is supported by the California Game
Wardens Association and the California Outdoor Heritage
Alliance, among others.
3)Opposition . This bill is opposed by the California
Sportsman's Lobby and the Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of
California, who express concern that the penalty provisions
will create an incentive to persecute generally law-abiding
hunters in an effort to secure revenue and assets while
failing to deter determined, hardcore poachers.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081