BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 1480 HEARING DATE: April 10, 2012
AUTHOR: Corbett URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 9, 2012 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Trapping.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Several key provisions of the Fish and Game Code deal with
trapping of mammals.
1. Section 4005 requires those who trap fur-bearing mammals or
nongame mammals for profit to be licensed by the Fish and Game
Commission (FGC). The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has the
responsibility to develop standards for trappers which may be
implemented in regulations developed by FGC. If not trapping
for profit, an owner of property or a tenant, as well as various
government officials, are not subject to this limitation. Fees
for trapping licenses are currently set in statute in section
4006.
2. When commercial trapping services are used, Section 4152
imposes the important principle that limits trapping of nongame
mammals and other specified animals to situations in which the
animals are injuring growing crops or other property. As above,
if not trapping for profit, an owner of property or a tenant, as
well as various government officials, are not subject to this
limitation.
3. Section 4180 requires that traps used to kill fur-bearing
mammals must be inspected daily and any animals removed at least
daily.
4. Section 4004 limits the killer-type trap of the conibear
variety to 10 x 10 inches. Conibear traps are illegal for fur
trappers to use but nuisance wildlife trappers may use them.
Conibear traps come in a variety of sizes and have a square
1
frame with two rotating jaws. Larger versions typically have two
springs. Commercial fur trappers are prohibited from using
conibear traps but nuisance wildlife trappers may. Only two
other states allow conibear traps of this size, Texas and
Tennessee.
5. Section 4008 prohibits issuance of a trapping license when a
previous license has lapsed within one year unless the applicant
fully documents the fur-bearing or other mammals that were
trapped under the previous license, among other criteria.
6. Government agencies are authorized to trap mammals involved
in dangerous human disease outbreaks.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would make several changes to the state's trapping
laws and licensing requirements.
1. The size restriction on conibear traps would be reduced to 6
inches unless partially or totally submerged in water, in which
case larger traps could be used. Thus, the bill would not
prohibit the use of larger submerged traps to control muskrat
and beaver.
2. The bill would add a prohibition on killing trapped mammals
by intentional drowning, chest crushing, or injection with
chemicals not sold for the purposes of euthanizing animals.
3. The bill would clarify that professional trappers'
solicitation for business would be limited to lawful trapping
activities (damage to crops or property) as set forth in
existing law.
4. A new provision on bats would prohibit trapping of bats but
allow techniques (such as nets and exclusion techniques) that
would exclude bats from structures during certain months for the
protection of human health or safety which is defined as meaning
preventing direct human contact with bats. The bill would
require an attempt to seal (with caulk or screening or other
measures) the entry points in a structure that allow entry into
a structure by bats. Exclusion would be authorized during times
that are intended to protect any young and prior to winter.
If such measures are not feasible, the property owner would be
2
required to notify DFG which would help the landowner exclude
the bats and could, if it so desired,`11` identify the
species of bat and consider whether to authorize exclusion
during other time periods. The bill would provide that DFG shall
determine whether there are alternatives to exclusion or if any
young can be saved.
Healthy bats of listed species could be relocated or taken to a
licensed wildlife rehabilitation center.
5. This bill would add a new licensing category for trappers by
creating both Class 1 and Class 2 trapping licenses that reflect
different purposes for trapping activities. Class 1 licensees
would be those who trap wildlife for recreation or for fur.
Class 2 licensees would be for those who trap wildlife for
profit with public clients when that wildlife is damaging crops
or other property. DFG would provide a list of approved Class 2
licensees and the registered business names of such licensees on
its website.
Trappers who advertise services contrary to the lawful purposes
of trapping (as a response to crop or property damage) could
have a trapping license suspended or revoked by the FGC. Also,
trappers who publish false or misleading information about
wildlife and diseases may face license suspension or revocation.
The commission could rely, in part, on the federal Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and the DFG websites to identify
false or misleading information.
6. Class 2 licensees would be required to make a reasonable
effort to leave orphaned animals within inaccessible areas of a
structure. "Reasonable effort" would mean that the trapper
applies the natural history information included in the study
materials provided in the Class 2 trapping study guide,
requesting information from the property owner if there are
signs, cries, or other indication of young, conducting a visual
inspection, monitoring the site, or other techniques. Lactating
females with known young would not to be killed as proposed in
this bill.
7. The bill would add basic consumer protection information to
contracts including name, license information, and a summary of
information for prospective customers of the laws about
trapping. Consumers would be told that trapped animals must be
killed or released on site, which is an outcome currently
required in FGC regulations.. Non-target animals would be
required to be immediately released. The provisions above
3
regarding orphaned animals would be displayed in contracts. The
provisions set forth above regarding prohibited methods of kill
would be displayed on contracts. Also, the restrictions on
trapping bats would be displayed in contracts.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, the provisions in this bill can be
summarized as follows:
1. Prevent the cruelest methods of killing wildlife caught by
trappers.
2. Provide basic consumer information about trapping when
contracts are signed.
3. Provide basic information to consumers on the DFG website
about trappers who are properly licensed.
4. Create potential disciplinary mechanisms at FGC for those who
violate state laws or regulations. The author points out that
DFG only cited 6 wildlife trapping violations in 2009 despite
the fact that local governments document hundreds of trapping
violations annually.
5. Reduce costs to consumers by asking trappers to take a few
basic steps to check on whether any young are present before
construction is necessary to remove them and then repair the
structure.
6. Reduce costs to wildlife rehabilitation centers who are often
asked to care for orphaned wildlife.
7. Add new provisions on bats to aid in their conservation while
also protecting homeowners.
The size restriction on conibear traps is designed to reflect a
size that is appropriate for most land-based nuisance wildlife
while retaining larger conibear traps for aquatic species such
as muskrat and beaver. This could help avoid killing non-target
species which happens in some cases resulting in the death of
household pets.
The consumer protection provisions are necessary because the
licensing provisions remain housed at the FGC and not at the
Department of Consumer Affairs, according to the author. FGC
has had 10 years or longer to develop such measures and has not
done so. Thus, there are no prohibitions on trapping services
4
being sold through the use of deceptive methods or on the basis
of claims that are not permitted under state law. For example,
the author has identified wildlife trapper websites that claim
nuisance wildlife should be removed for human health and safety
reasons in the absence of the required crop or property damage.
Also, the author notes that some trappers make claims about
wildlife disease that are not substantiated in an attempt to
drum up business.
Local governments and wildlife rehabilitation specialists spend
countless hours and many dollars looking for orphaned wildlife
left behind by nuisance wildlife trappers. This bill would ask
the trappers to reduce the burden on local governments and rehab
centers by taking some basic steps.
Thomas Belt, a retired Fish and Game captain, indicated his
support for the prohibition on cruel killing techniques by
noting that in his experience, some nuisance wildlife was
burned, stabbed, drowned, or often just left to die in traps
from dehydration and hunger. As he put it, "nuisance wildlife
pest control operators can and do charge a lot of money to
remove damaging wildlife from private properties and there is no
reason why these pest control operators shouldn't be held to a
high set of practicing humane euthanasia standards."
The National Urban Wildlife Coalition is concerned that trappers
often kill animals inhumanely and that the industry is in need
of increased professionalism.
The California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators argues that
exclusion techniques can be very effective ways to protect
structures from nuisance wildlife. It also supports more
stringent guidelines for the use of traps.
The Humane Society of the United States has been concerned for
years about the lack of oversight of the nuisance wildlife
industry. Some of the provisions of this bill have been enacted
in Washington, D.C., including the provisions designed to
prevent orphaning and prohibiting inhumane killing practices.
HSUS also supports the consumer protection provisions of the
bill.
Born Free USA and a coalition of other groups points to the
policy against orphaning of young animals as one of the main
reasons for its support of the bill.
Groups like the ASPCA and the others listed in support joined in
5
many of these concerns.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The California Farm Bureau Federation has an oppose unless
amended position and wants to work with the author to ensure
that the bill's effect on muskrat and beaver trapping does not
change existing law. It has some concern about the fee
provisions as well. In both instances it believes these concerns
can be worked out with the author.
California Waterfowl Association argues that the license
suspension or revocation provisions are too broad and
potentially too severe to deal with minor infractions. It asks
if the prohibition against "false and misleading" information is
too subjective. And it is concerned that a separate new account
for trapping license fees would limit the ability of DFG to
spend money from the Fish and Game Preservation Fund for broader
conservation objectives.
One individual argued that the bill would make it easier for
animal rights groups to "terrorize" Class 2 licensees and this
individual also opposed the separate provisions of the bill.
COMMENTS
1. Staff is suggesting two amendments in Sec. 4005.
(A) It is not necessary to re-state that trapping licenses are
subject to revocation pursuant to Sec. 12156 of the Fish and
Game Code as proposed in 4005 (h) (1). That section requires a
conviction prior to revocation, and would apply in any event to
licenses granted under the Fish and Game Code and the two
classes of licenses proposed in this bill.
(B) Sec 4005(h)(2) should be re-worded as follows in order to
remove the subjectivity inherent in the terminology of "false
and misleading" information, and also to delete the possibility
of license revocation for what could be unintentional
misstatements about wildlife diseases. The proposed new language
would allow the FGC to warn a licensee of such mistakes, as well
as consider suspension of a license for a given period of time,
but would not allow revocation. Second, the proposed amendment
would retain the references to the wildlife disease information
databases published by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and DFG.
As proposed to be amended, that section would read:
(2) Notwithstanding section 12156, the commission may issue a
6
formal warning or suspension of a license for violations of this
paragraph when a licensee is found, after a duly noticed public
hearing, to have published information about wildlife diseases
that is inconsistent with the information about wildlife
diseases published by the federal Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention or by the department. The commission may consider
other sources of information as appropriate.
2. The new language on bats deserves a comment. It is important
for the Committee and others to understand that California has
long-required preventative measures to be taken before authority
is granted in depredation permits to kill nuisance wildlife.
That is the case with coyotes, mountain lions, wild pigs and
other species. DFG has twice proposed a similar outcome for bats
which was not adopted for other reasons several years ago.
California has 24 species of bats, 11 of which are species of
special concern under the state endangered species act. This
designation means that these species have low or declining
populations that could lead to a more restrictive designation
such as threatened or endangered. The emphasis in the bill is
that bats should be excluded from structures and every attempt
should be made not to harm bats while they may have young or are
hibernating.
Assuming the bill moves forward, the author may want to consider
a slightly more compact form of the bat language which is
suggested below. The amendment establishes conditions that would
allow bats to be excluded from structures at any time to protect
human health and safety. As proposed to be amended, 4004 (k)
would be drafted as follows:
(k) (1) Trap bats, except that nets may be used for non-lethal
control of property damage or for protection of human health or
safety. Nets and exclusion are the only lawful methods of
removing bats from a structure. Exclusion is defined a method of
allowing an animal to leave an area but not return. Except as
provided for in subsection (2) bats may only be excluded outside
of the periods during which non-flying young are present and
when bats are in torpor or hibernation, which is defined as a
period in which the consistent weekday temperature remains
consistently over 50 degrees F for seven consecutive days except
as otherwise authorized by the department. This section does not
affect a person possessing a scientific collector's permit.
(2) Bats may be excluded to protect human health and safety at
any time, when in accordance with subsections (A) and (B). For
7
the purpose of this section, protection of human health and
safety is defined as preventing direct human contact with bats
within any structure.
(A) If there are holes or cracks in a structure that allow bats
to enter the interior area of a structure which humans occupy,
it is the responsibility of a property owner or a designated
agent or licensee to seal or screen or otherwise close these
holes to prevent bats from entering the structure. If the
property owner or a designated agent or licensee is unable to
seal, screen or otherwise close the holes or cracks that allow
bats to enter the structure, the property owner shall contact
the nearest regional office of the department prior to taking
any action to exclude the bats.
(B) If a property owner contacts a regional office of the
department to report that bats are entering the interior of a
structure that is occupied by humans and is unable to seal those
access points that allow bats entry, the department shall assist
the landowner in addressing this risk to human health or safety.
The department may assist by recommending the appropriate course
of action and may request that the landowner grant permission
for a department warden or biologist to enter the affected
structure to further assist the property owner. The department
may want to identify the species of bat, the protected status of
the bat, the size of the colony, or other factors in providing
an effective remedy to protect the health or safety of all
occupants of the structure and the protection of bats. The
department shall not prohibit any person from excluding bats for
the protection of human health or safety.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
Delete 4004 (h) (1).
AMENDMENT 2
Include the language in Comment 3(B).
AMENDMENT 3
With the agreement of the author, include the language in
8
Comment 2,
SUPPORT
Animal Place
Animal Rescue and Protection League
ASPCA
Bat Conservation International
Born Free USA
California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators
Humane Society of the United States
Marin Humane Society
National Urban Wildlife Coalition
Native Animal Rescue
PawPac
Public Interest Coalition
Red Rover
Sacramento SPCA
SPCA Los Angeles
Wild Earth Guardians
111 individuals
OPPOSITION
California Farm Bureau Federation (unless amended)
California Sportsman's Lobby
California Waterfowl Association
Outdoor Sportsman's Coalition of California
Safari Club International
1 Individual
9