BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SB 1480 (Corbett) - Trapping.
Amended: May 2, 2012 Policy Vote: NR&W 5-3
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: May 21, 2012 Consultant: Marie Liu
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 1480 would make it unlawful to trap bats and
would restrict the netting and exclusion of bats. This bill
would also create a special trapping license for persons
offering trapping services to the public and establish
conditions for use of that license.
Fiscal Impact: Ongoing costs of at least $400,000 from the Fish
and Game Preservation Fund (special) beginning in 2013-14 for
the administration and implementation costs associated with a
class II trapping license.
Background: Existing law requires a license for persons trapping
fur-bearing mammals or nongame mammals for profit. In regards to
commercial trapping services, animals may only be trapped if
they are injuring growing crops or other properties. Government
agencies may trap mammals involved in dangerous human disease
outbreaks.
The number of trapping licenses issued to California residents
has dramatically increased in recent years from approximately
200 in 2003 to over 713 in 2011. The license fee is currently
$108 for California residents. In 2011, trapping licenses
accounted for approximately $71,000 deposited into the Fish and
Game-non Dedicated account which may be used for the enforcement
of trapping laws and regulations.
Existing law also specifies the maximum size of a killer-type
trap of the conibear type steel leghold trap is 10 by 10 inches.
Proposed Law: This bill would establish nonlethal use of nets
and exclusion as the only legal methods of removing bats from a
structure and explicitly prohibit the trapping of bats. This
bill would also establish a procedure that must be followed
SB 1480 (Corbett)
Page 1
before excluding bats from a structure, including contacting a
regional office of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) for
assistance in addressing this risk to human health or safety.
DFG may recommend an appropriate course of action.
This bill would also create a class II trapping license which
would apply to those offering trapping services (class I
licenses would be for those who trap wildlife for recreation or
fur). DFG would be required to publish on its website all class
II licensees. This bill would put conditions on trapping that
occurs under a class II license. The Fish and Game Commission
(commission) may issue a formal warning or suspend a class
license if the licensee has published erroneous information
about wildlife diseases.
Trapping license fees would be the same for class I and class II
licenses, and revenues from both would be deposited into the
newly created Trapping Enforcement Account within the Fish and
Game Preservation Fund. Moneys in the new account would be
available to enforcement of trapping laws and regulations.
This bill would also reduce the legal size of killer-type trap
of the conibear type to 6 inches by 6 inches unless the trap is
partially or wholly submerged in water and restricts the manner
in which a trapped mammal may be killed.
Staff Comments: In regards to the provisions on bat removal,
this bill is likely to impose cost pressures on the DFG to
assist property owners or their agent in recommending an
appropriate course of action. However, because DFG can fulfill
these requirements by referring property owners to the proper
resources, rather than conducting removal activities themselves,
it is likely that DFG can absorb these costs.
In regards to the creation of the class II trapping license and
associated restrictions, DFG estimates staffing needs in the
range of $400,000 to $500,000. These costs would be for the
development and maintenance of a public database for class II
licensees, to develop standards to ensure competency and
proficiency of applicants for a trapping license, and work
associated with the commission issuing warnings and license
suspensions as a result of publishing erroneous information.
Staff notes that the DFG estimates include the cost of
developing new standards for class II licensees, which may be
seen as desirable or necessary by DFG, but is not required by
SB 1480 (Corbett)
Page 2
the bill.
Staff further notes that the class II license created by this
bill would likely require more enforcement and oversight than
the class I recreation and fur license, yet both licenses would
be paying the same fee. Also, there has been an effort to switch
all fee-setting authority from statute to the commission (for
example, see SB 1148 (Pavley)). Putting the fee setting
authority with the commission increases the likelihood that the
license fee covers DFG's costs associated with issuing and
enforcing the license. Staff recommends that the commission be
given the authority to set at least the class II license fees in
an amount sufficient to recover all reasonable administrative
and implementation costs and to allow amount to be adjusted
annually for inflation.
This bill creates a separate account for revenues from trapping
license sales. DFG has expressed concern that creating a special
account for less than $100,000 in revenues may not be cost
effective, as a special account increases administrative and
accounting costs. Staff notes that license fee revenues may
dramatically increase if class II license fees can be set by the
commission at a level to cover DFG's costs. However, it is
unclear whether these revenues would be high enough to justify
the separate account and whether the account should be just for
class II license revenues.
This bill creates a non-reimbursable mandate by creating a new
crime.
Recommended Amendments: Allow the commission to set a separate
class II license fee.