BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 1107 HEARING DATE: March 27, 2012
AUTHOR: Berryhill URGENCY: No
VERSION: March 22, 2012 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Entitlements: voluntary donations.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Every person must have a license for the take of fish, birds,
and mammals (section 3007 of the Fish and Game Code for hunting
licenses, section 7145 of the Fish and Game Code for fishing
licenses) unless that person is covered by an exception, which
is a rarity. Two of the exceptions are for fishing by a
landowner on private property and hunting on a free hunting day.
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is phasing out their
current paper license system and replacing it with an automated
system called the Automated License Data System (ALDS). This
process began about a year ago. Phase I of the ALDS roll-out
ended in late 2011. Phase I consisted of siting kiosks for
selling licenses and establishing an ALDS website for the public
to use. DFG is now in the midst of Phase II of the roll-out
which should take until about 2014. Phase II will focus on
internal improvements to the system, adding new functionality,
and other tasks.
Fish and Game Code Sec. 1050.6 is clear that the names and
addresses of those obtaining recreational fishing and hunting
licenses are confidential and shall only be released in limited
circumstances.
-
| |
-
PROPOSED LAW
1. This bill would require DFG to give all persons who purchase
1
a license or permit through ALDS an opportunity to release their
contact information to eligible nonprofit conservation
organizations. The bill would allow the department to use a
"check-off box" or other means on the ALDS system.
2. A nonprofit seeking to receive contact information would need
to request eligibility from DFG and, in addition, meet specified
criteria. DFG would be required to transmit the contact
information to each approved nonprofit.
3. DFG would be able to charge the nonprofits that receive
information the direct costs of administering the transmittal of
contact information.
4. The definition of eligible nonprofit organization includes
the following criteria:
A. The nonprofit is a 501(c)(3) organization.
B. It is registered with the Attorney General.
C. Its goals and objectives are directly related to the
conservation and management of sportfish and game species.
D. In each of the past 3 years, it entered into an
agreement with the department to perform habitat or other
wildlife conservation work or to raise funds on behalf of
the department including the sale of hunting fundraising
tags or providing hunting and fishing opportunities for
the public.
5. A nonprofit that receives contact information is prohibited
from distributing information with another entity. Violations of
this provision would result in a five-year period of
ineligibility from the further receipt of contact information.
6. The department would be authorized to use some of the
surcharge proceeds placed on entitlements purchased from ALDS to
pay a reasonable portion of the costs of complying with the
provisions of this bill.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The California Outdoor Heritage Alliance (COHA) supports the
bill because it believes that greater conservation efforts will
occur at the local level. Although not specified in the bill,
COHA suggests that typical activities could include wetland
restoration efforts, big game population surveying, controlled
burning to improve habitat, re-forestation efforts, securing
public access to land, facilitating conservation easements on
2
private land, and migratory bird banding.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received
COMMENTS
In conversation with the author, the first two amendments
clarify his intent.
1. On page 2, line 7, the bill should stipulate that the
conservation organizations that receive the person's contact
information are organizations chosen by the individual.
2. On page 3, line 11, the provision should make it clear that
the nonprofit attempting to obtain contact information must have
provided the identified assistance to DFG in one of the three
previous calendar years, not in each of the previous three
calendar years.
3. A recent amendment limited the definition of eligible
conservation groups to sportfishing groups, as opposed to all
fishing groups. This change presumably would exclude commercial
fishing nonprofits. The author should be open to the possibility
of restoring the original language if the commercial fishing
groups demonstrate sufficient activity through nonprofit
organizations that help the department as provided in this bill.
4. Another recent amendment, as drafted by Legislative Counsel,
continuously appropriates to DFG the funds contributed by
nonprofits that offset the administrative costs of DFG. This
proposed language may be considered again in Appropriations.
5. It may be the case that hunting and fishing groups are the
predominant users of the provisions of this bill, but there are
other nonprofits that provide services to the department. The
bill is currently limited to organizations that perform habitat
or other wildlife conservation work or raise funds on behalf of
the department including the sale of hunting fundraising tags or
provide hunting and fishing opportunities to the public.
"Wildlife conservation work" is not a defined term and rather
than exclude groups over semantics, it would be preferable for
all nonprofits whose work advances the department's mission to
be able to receive contact information.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
3
AMENDMENT 1
Include the first two amendments in the Comments section.
AMENDMENT 2
Consistent with the fifth comment, above, add at the end of
page 3, line 16: "or provide assistance to the department
that is consistent with the department's mission."
SUPPORT
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
California Waterfowl Association
OPPOSITION
None Received
4