BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  SB 505
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 17, 2011

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                   SB 505 (La Malfa) - As Amended:  June 30, 2011 

          Policy Committee:                             Water, Parks and 
          Wildlife     Vote:                            13-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          No     Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill authorizes the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), if 
          it is unable to meet nonmandatory statutory goals for production 
          of hatchery trout, to purchase up to 20% of the fish needed to 
          meet the goals from privately owned hatcheries.  The bill 
          conditions DFG's authority upon DFG's determination that a 
          privately owned hatchery meets operation standards as stringent 
          as those at state hatcheries and that the cost of the private 
          hatchery fish is no more than the cost of state hatchery fish.  
          The bill also requires DFG to periodically report to the 
          Legislature.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Potential minor, absorbable costs to DFG to inspect privately 
          owned hatcheries and report to the Legislature.  (Special fund.)

          DFG indicates that trout from privately owned hatcheries are 
          more costly than trout from state hatcheries.  However, this 
          price differential will not result in increased costs to DFG 
          because the authority provided to DFG to purchase trout from 
          privately owned hatcheries is limited by DFG's ability to do so 
          at a cost that is no more than the cost of state hatchery fish.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale  .  The author asserts numerous economic and 
            recreational benefits resulting from trout planting and 
            contends DFG has not met statutory goals for trout planting 
            because of a lack of capacity in state hatcheries.  The author 
            asserts there are trout available from privately owned 








                                                                  SB 505
                                                                  Page  2

            hatcheries available to DFG to allow it to meet is statutory 
            production goals.

           2)Background.   Current law requires one third of all sport 
            fishing license fees to be deposited into the Hatchery and 
            Inland Fisheries Fund, which, upon appropriation, supports 
            DFG's sport fisheries programs.  Statute enacted in 2005 (AB 
            7, Cogdill (Chapter 689)) requires DFG to use monies in the 
            fund to achieve specified production goals, specifically that, 
            by July 1, 2009, and thereafter, a minimum of 2.75 pounds of 
            trout be released per sport fishing license sold, 2.25 pounds 
            of which are of catchable size or larger.  In recent years, 
            DFG has not met these statutory goals for a variety of 
            reasons.
           
           Analysis Prepared by  :    Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081