BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2283
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2283 (Portantino)
As Amended May 25, 2012
Majority vote
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 8-3
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Blumenfield, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Campos, Fong, Williams, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Roger Hern�ndez, Lara, | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| |Yamada | |Gatto, Ammiano, Hill, |
| | | |Lara, Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Halderman, Beth Gaines, |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| |Jones | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Renames the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) as the
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Specifically, this bill :
1)Renames DFG as the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and
provides that the Department of Fish and Wildlife may be
referred to, where appropriate and as deemed by the director,
as CAL WILD.
2)Provides that no existing supplies, forms, insignias, signs,
logos, uniforms, or emblems shall be destroyed or changed as a
result of changing the name of DFG to the Department of Fish
and Wildlife, and those materials shall continue to be used
until exhausted or unserviceable.
3)Provides that information technology systems shall not be
revised sooner than otherwise planned as a result of the name
change, but shall be updated to reflect the name change when
those programs or systems are updated in the normal course of
business.
EXISTING LAW : Creates DFG as a department within the State
Natural Resources Agency and gives DFG authority over management
of fish and wildlife resources. DFG is generally charged with
administering and enforcing the Fish and Game Code and wildlife
AB 2283
Page 2
resources are held in trust by DFG for the people of the state.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, costs to DFG are likely to range in the tens of
thousands of dollars, possibly exceeding $150,000, based on the
experience of other departments that have implemented name
changes.
COMMENTS : According to the author of this bill, the name of DFG
should be changed because use of the term "game," which refers
to hunted animals, does not reflect the priority of many
Californians to protect species from over hunting and
extinction.
The recommendation to change the name of DFG to the Department
of Fish and Wildlife was also included in recommendations of the
Blue Ribbon Citizen's Commission (BRCC) formed as part of the
strategic visioning process initiated as a result of passage of
AB 2376 (Huffman), Chapter 424, Statutes of 2010, and
facilitated by the Natural Resources Agency. The BRCC
recommended that the name be changed to more accurately reflect
the broader scope of DFG's responsibilities in the 21st century.
Members of the strategic vision Stakeholder Advisory Group
(SAG), which consisted of members representing a broad array of
interest groups including hunters and fishers, did not make a
final recommendation on a name change, but also agreed that the
existing name does not accurately reflect the current mandates
of DFG. Documents summarizing the SAG discussions indicated
there was general agreement that the current name reflects the
historical origins of DFG as an agency primarily concerned with
managing hunting and fishing, and does not accurately reflect
the modern, broad mandates of DFG to manage species and habitats
for a variety of purposes, both ecological and utilitarian.
Potential benefits of a name change cited by the SAG included
improved alignment between the name and DFG's current broad
range of duties, and improved understanding, appreciation and
support on the part of the wider public for the mission and work
of the department. The SAG also noted that polling leading up
to the Proposition 21 campaign in November of 2011 found that
the term wildlife and protection of wildlife attracted wider
support from diverse constituency groups than virtually any
other term or concept. Potential drawbacks to a name change
cited by the SAG included costs (which could potentially be
AB 2283
Page 3
avoided by phasing in replacement of stationary and other
supplies) and a risk of alienating some of DFG's hunting
constituency if the name change were viewed as a movement away
from historic support of hunting and fishing.
Opponents of this bill object to the name change because they
believe it could result in the department de-emphasizing hunting
and fishing and lead to a reduction in the sale of firearms,
ammunition, fishing tackle and camping gear, and negatively
affect small businesses that sell these products. Opponents
assert that although other states have changed the names of
their departments to refer to wildlife rather than game, many of
those other states are strong pro-hunting and pro-fishing states
where opponents of hunting do not have the same level of
influence that they do in California. Thus changing the name of
the department has not resulted in the de-emphasis on hunting
and fishing in those other states that opponents fear could
result in California.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0003962