BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1480
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 26, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared Huffman, Chair
SB 1480 (Corbett) - As Amended: June 15, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 22 - 14
SUBJECT : Trapping
SUMMARY : This bill addresses several areas of the law with
regard to trapping and the licensing, contracting, and conduct
of trappers providing animal pest management services.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Implements new restrictions on when and how certain animals
may be trapped and killed:
a) Reduces from 10 inches by 10 inches to 6 inches by 6
inches the maximum size of conibear-type traps
(spring-loaded crushing traps without teeth) that may be
used, except where they are submerged or partially
submerged.
b) Prohibits killing any trapped mammal by intentional
drowning, injection with any chemical not sold for the
purpose of euthanizing animals or thoracic compression
(i.e. chest crushing) with the exception of conibear traps
lawfully set in water for beaver or muskrat or colony traps
set in water for muskrat.
c) Prohibits the trapping of bats, other than by nets or
exclusion:
i) Specifies that nets or exclusion shall not be
allowed when there are nonflying young present or bats
are hibernating unless for reasons of human health or
safety or if bats are entering human-occupied
structures;
ii) Requires home owners to screen and prevent bats
from entering human-occupied structures or, when that
is not possible, to seek assistance from the Department
of Fish and Game (DFG); and,
iii) Requires, where there is a health and safety
risk, that DFG assist a homeowner that cannot
successfully exclude bats from a human-occupied
structure. Allows DFG discretion on how to assist.
SB 1480
Page 2
Specifies DFG cannot prohibit any person from excluding
bats for the protection of human health or safety.
2)Creates two classes of licenses for persons who are trapping
mammals and only allows renewals for the category of license
possessed:
a) A class I license applying to persons who trap mammals
for recreation or fur. The class I license is issued
subject to the existing conditions specified for a trapping
license, including testing by DFG for knowledge and skill;
and,
b) A class II license for persons who trap mammals for
profit, meaning persons working in the animal pest
management field (class II licensees). The class II license
is subject to a new license application test to be
developed by DFG.
3)Prohibits trappers from soliciting business from the public by
alleging there is a health or safety threat or, for class II
licensees, for any reason other than in response to property
or crop damage.
4)Allows the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to issue a
formal warning or suspend the license when a licensee is
found, after a public hearing, to have published information
about wildlife diseases that is inconsistent with information
published by the federal Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention or DFG.
5)Requires DFG to post on its Internet Web site a list of class
II licensees and the business names under which they operate.
6)Requires class II licensees to provide customers with a
written contract, including, but not limited to the following:
a) The name, contact information, business name and license
number of the person setting the trap and the name and
telephone number of the person responsible for checking the
trap;
b) An acknowledgement that wildlife can only be trapped for
profit if there is crop or property damage and that animals
posing a risk to health or safety must be taken by
specified government officials;
c) A description of the property damage and the animal or
species responsible;
d) An acknowledgement that traps must have DFG-issued
SB 1480
Page 3
identifying tags, be checked daily, that animals that are
legal to trap must be killed or released and non-target
animals immediately released; that animals to be killed
should be shot where and when permitted but shall not be
subject to drowning, chest crushing, or injection with any
chemical not sold for animal euthanasia.
e) An acknowledgement of the restrictions on trapping bats;
f) The signature of both the licensed trapper and client;
g) A list of the animals trapped at the address and the
date and disposition of each.
7)Requires a class II licensee to make reasonable efforts to
detect when dependent young animals may be present and not
orphan known or suspected young animals in inaccessible areas
of structures. Specifies that lawful and humane methods shall
be used to induce the mother to relocate the young.
8)Continues to exempt from trapping license requirements:
a) Officers or employees of federal, county, or city
agencies or DFG, when acting in their official capacities;
b) Officers or employees of the Department of Food and
Agriculture, when acting pursuant to the Food and
Agricultural Code pertaining to pests or a report from the
State Department of Health Services that rodents in a
certain area carry, or are likely to carry, any disease,
insect, or other vector of any disease which is
transmissible and injurious to humans;
c) Structural pest control operators licensed by the
Structural Pest Control Board within the Department of
Pesticide Regulation (DPR) when those operators are
trapping rats, mice, voles, moles, or gophers; and,
d) Persons working for pest control businesses certified by
DPR when those persons are trapping rats, mice, voles, or
gophers.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Fish and Game Code (FGC) section 4005 requires those who trap
fur-bearing mammals or nongame mammals for profit to be
licensed by the Commission. DFG has the responsibility to
develop standards for trappers which may be implemented in
regulations developed by the Commission. If not trapping for
profit, an owner of property or a tenant, as well as various
government officials, are not subject to this limitation.
SB 1480
Page 4
Fees for trapping licenses are currently set in FGC section
4006.
2)When commercial trapping services are used, FGC 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)FGC section 4180 requires that traps used to kill fur-bearing
mammals must be inspected daily and any animals removed at
least daily.
4)FGC section 4004 limits conibear-type traps 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 frame with two
rotating jaws. Larger versions typically have two springs.
5)FGC 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)FGC section 4011 authorizes the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
(USDA), U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Services, state Dept. of Food and Agriculture, state
Dept. of Public Health, DFG, and county officials that receive
prior approval from the DFG director or the director's
designee, to trap mammals involved in dangerous disease
outbreaks.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee
staff analysis there would be 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. The Senate
Appropriations Committee staff analysis concludes these costs
will mostly, if not completely, be recovered through a class II
license fee.
COMMENTS :
SB 1480
Page 5
Conibear Traps: limitation on size
April 29, 2012, the Sacramento Bee newspaper began a three-part
series on the USDA Wildlife Services (Wildlife Services)
entitled "The Killing Agency." The point of the Sacramento Bee
article was that many of the methods used by Wildlife Services
are indiscriminate, such as setting out traps. In particular,
the article stated that "body grip" traps like the conibear,
that are used mostly to catch beaver, "snap together with
extreme force and are designed to kill quickly by drowning or
crushing. Non-target victims include raccoons, skunks, dogs,
and dozens of wetland species from river otters to wood ducks to
snapping turtles."
Many states have limited the size of conibear-type traps in
order to prevent the killing of non-target species, including
domestic pets. California is one of the last three states to
allow conibear traps that are 10 by 10 inches, the other two are
Texas and Tennessee. Six states have restricted conibear traps
to 6 by 6 inches and ten have completely prohibited them on
land.
Exclusion of Bats
The DFG Biogeographical Data Branch maintains the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) listing of Special Animals
including "Species of Special Concern," which are animals with
low or declining numbers of individuals, or low, scattered or
highly localized populations that require active management to
prevent them from becoming threatened or endangered species.
Currently, a dozen California bat species are designated Species
of Special Concern and one is already listed under the federal
Endangered Species Act. According to DFG, "bats play a critical
role in the ecosystem and important agricultural and commercial
plants like bananas, balsawood, breadfruit, chicle (for chewing
gum), cashews, dates, figs, mangoes, and vanilla also rely on
bats for pollination and seed dispersal?Bats also provide all
natural pest control? Worldwide, bats are the most important
natural predators of night-flying insects. Just one of
California's little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) can catch and
eat 600 mosquitoes per hour."
DFG provides the following information regarding bat management
on its Internet web site. Under "Living with Bats," DFG states
that current California law allows property owners or their
SB 1480
Page 6
employees to legally remove bats from property when bats are
damaging it but that it is illegal to capture or possess bats
for any other reason without a DFG permit. DFG then admonishes
homeowners to "Beware of unscrupulous pest control companies,
however, that want to poison or fumigate bats to kill them. Not
only is the use of poisons or fumigants on bats illegal under
both state and federal law, it's costly and doesn't solve the
problem. Unless bats are removed and their access points sealed,
more bats will be back next year. The best way to remove bats is
by permanently excluding their access. A variety of humane
exclusion techniques are available that let bats escape from,
but not reenter, the roost in your building. Exclusion
techniques should not be used during the maternity season if
young are present, usually from about the beginning of April
through the end of August, when young bats are unable to fly and
manage on their own. Besides being unnecessarily cruel,
excluding bats during the maternity season can actually make the
problem worse with the smell of dead baby bats and bugs they
attract."
Current law restricts nuisance trapping for "public health" to
government agencies
One of the most confusing debates about this bill concerns its
solicitation restrictions. Because current law only allows the
for-profit trapping of mammals if there has been property or
crop damage, this bill prohibits the solicitation by a
for-profit trapping business to the public alleging that mammals
that have not committed damage should be trapped anyway because
they pose a health and safety risk. This bill does not affect
the existing authority of specified government agencies to trap
mammals that they believe pose a health and safety risk.
Previous legislation
SB 1645 (Sher, Chapter 571, Statutes of 2002) required DFG to
develop standards to ensure the competence and proficiency of
applicants for a trapping license. AB 449 (Stirckland, 2007)
would have required the euthanasia of a mammal trapped for
profit pursuant to specified methods as approved and outlined by
the American Veterinary Medical Association. The bill would have
authorized the use of gunshot, as specified, if those other
euthanasia methods were not available. AB 449 was vetoed by
former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. AB 1477 (Soto, 2007)
would have required a person who traps fur-bearing animals for
profit to complete continuing education requirements and would
have established standards for handling of non-target animals.
SB 1480
Page 7
AB 1477 was vetoed by former Governor Schwarzenegger.
Supporting Arguments : The author states that the intent of the
legislature with SB 1645 was "to provide consumers and wildlife
with protection from unscrupulous trappers. However, DFG has yet
to adopt regulations to fully implement this law." Further, "in
the absence of regulations, California consumers have no way of
confirming whether a perspective trapper is licensed and are
often overcharged for services they might not need. Bad acting
trappers cause thousands of animals to suffer needlessly each
year. Unlicensed trappers often use inhumane methods to kill
wildlife?that are prohibited for recreation or fur trapping?
These methods are cruel, and often non-targeted animals, such as
pets, fall victim." Supporters note that many other
professional contractors are required to provide their clients
with a written contract that includes a summary of the relevant
laws and consumer rights and that this will "help homeowners
protect themselves and encourage compliance with trapping laws
and license requirements, thereby reducing �DFG] enforcement
burdens and increasing �DFG] licensing revenues." With respect
to this bill's bat exclusion provisions, supporters state that
"other methods of bat removal?are not only ineffective but can
result in high mortality of bats and increased risk to human
health and safety" because of "disoriented bats coming into
contact with people and pets." Supporters also note that a
"recent 2011 article in the journal Science estimates the value
of bats to U.S. agriculture to be more than $3.7 billion per
year."
Opposing Arguments : Opponents are concerned about the level of
fees that might be charged for a class II license and find the
contract requirements onerous stating that "the items in this
bill in regard to consumer contract requirements are not
practical and should not be required of trappers. Many other
industries have specific regulations relating to their field of
work, but they are not required to list each one of them at the
top of their contracts?.Verbally explaining our trapping
services to the client and filing out a service report detailing
the services performed should be enough." Opponents also state
that limiting trapping to "damage to property" is too narrow.
Other opponents had an oppose unless amended position in the
Senate as they were concerned about this bill's effects on
muskrat and beaver trapping. The author took amendments to
allow submerged traps and those opponents submitted a new
opposition letter stating the bill could still "continue to
SB 1480
Page 8
impact agriculture and famers' and ranchers' ability to control
vertebrate pests. For instance badgers can cause damage to
pastures and cropland and California's current limits on
trapping methods makes control difficult." Finally, some
opponents are concerned that while this bill would allow the
placement of larger traps that are partially or wholly submerged
in water, it might still prohibit the placement of traps in
managed wetland areas that are only subject to periodic
inundation and where the traps might not remain submerged at all
times.
With respect to badgers, Committee staff notes that the DFG
Wildlife Habitat Relationship System states that the American
badger, which helps control small mammal populations like rats,
mice, chipmunks, ground squirrels and pocket gophers, is now
considered a Species of Special Concern because "predator
controlling using indiscriminate trapping and persistent poisons
causes extensive losses."
Suggested Committee Amendments
To address the following issues that were raised with the
author, Committee staff suggests two amendments. First, in
order to allow special districts and levee maintenance agencies
to conduct trapping programs in order to protect levees and
water supply infrastructure, the following language, modeled on
existing FGC section 4153, should be added as a new section to
this bill:
The department may enter into cooperative agreements with any
special district or levee maintenance agency for the purpose of
controlling harmful nongame mammals to maintain irrigation,
water supply, drainage and flood control works.
Second, in managed wetlands where a conibear-type trap set in
water may only be periodically inundated, modify section 4004(f)
of this bill to read that it is unlawful to:
(f) Use a steel leghold trap with a spread exceeding 71/2 inches
or killer-type trap of the conibear type that is larger than 6
inches by 6 inches , . unless partially or wholly submerged in
water Provided however that use of a conibear-type trap that is
greater than 6 inches by 6 inches, but no larger than 10 inches
by 10 inches, shall not be prohibited where the trap is
partially or wholly submerged in water or placed within a
managed wetland subject to periodic inundation.
SB 1480
Page 9
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Born Free (sponsor)
San Francisco Wildlife Center (sponsor)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Place
Animal Protection & Rescue League
Animal Welfare Institute
Bat Conservation International
Flying Mammal Rescue of Sacramento
Lindsay Wildlife Museum
Marin Humane Society
Northern California Bats of Davis
PawPac
Project Coyote
Public Interest Coalition
Red Rover
Sacramento SPCA
SPCA Los Angeles
State Humane Association of California
The Humane Society of the United States
The Marin Humane Society
Wild Earth Guardians
Wildlife Rescue Sonoma County
Yolo County SPCA
126 Individuals Opposition
Animal Pest Management Services, Inc.
Animal & Insect Pest Management, Inc.
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Waterfowl Association
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of CA
Safari Club International
The California Sportsmen's Lobby, Inc.
1 Individual
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096