BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1480
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1480 (Corbett)
As Amended August 20, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :22-14
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 8-2APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Blumenfield, |Ayes:|Gatto, Blumenfield, |
| |Campos, Fong, Gatto, | |Bradford, |
| |Roger Hern�ndez, Hueso, | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| |Yamada | |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, |
| | | |Hill, Cedillo, Mitchell, |
| | | |Solorio |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Bill Berryhill, Beth |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| |Gaines | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Limits the size of body-crushing traps in order to
prevent killing of non-target species, including family dogs.
Specifies conditions and requirements for excluding bats from
structures. Requires that, after July 1, 2013, commercial
trappers of nuisance mammals, excluding mice, rats, moles and
voles, must be tested and licensed by the Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) and meet other relevant requirements. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Reduces the maximum size of conibear killer-type traps that
may be used, other than in water or wetlands. Requires
publicly-used lands to be posted with "Danger! Keep Dogs Out!
Lethal Traps Set for Wildlife."
2)Prohibits killing trapped mammals by drowning, injecting with
chemicals other than those sold for animal euthanasia, or
chest crushing (other than with an authorized trap).
3)Prohibits the trapping of bats but allows the netting and
exclusion of bats to protect property or for the protection of
human health and safety, as specified. Allows, but does not
require, DFG to provide assistance and expertise on excluding
bats.
SB 1480
Page 2
4)After July 1, 2013, converts the existing testing and
licensing requirements for fur trappers into a class I license
program and creates a class II testing and licensing program
for for-profit nuisance mammal trapping. Requires DFG to post
on its Internet Web site, at least annually, a list of class
II licensees and the business names under which they operate
5)Requires, after July 1, 2013, that a class II licensee 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.
6)Requires, after July 1, 2013, that class II licensees provide
customers with a written contract including, but not limited
to, contact information and consumer disclosures detailing
lawful methods of setting and checking traps and releasing or
euthanizing caught animals. Requires contracts to be kept on
file for three years and made available to DFG upon request.
7)Maintains existing exemptions from trapping license
requirements for specified state, federal and local officials.
Allows DFG to enter into cooperative agreements with special
districts or state or local agencies that are responsible for
levee maintenance for the purpose of controlling harmful
nongame mammals.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, there would be one-time costs in 2012-13 of
approximately $125,000 to DFG to establish class II commercial
trapping license base fee and to develop regulations ($100,000)
and modify the automated licensing system ($25,000) (special
fund).
The staff analysis estimates annual costs of approximately
$220,000 to DFG for a warden to monitor trapper activities
($200,000) and for staff to administer sales, update Web site,
and coordinate with regional staff ($20,000) (special fund) with
annual fee revenue, beginning in 2012-13, of an unknown amount
but presumably sufficient to cover all DFG's one-time and
ongoing costs that result from implementation of the
requirements of this bill (special fund).
SB 1480
Page 3
Appropriations Committee staff advise that DFG is concerned that
the class II fee paying universe may be too small to support the
class II fee, which DFG preliminarily estimates will be $1,200
to $1,500, if a large number of current commercial trapping
operations cease operation as a result of the fee.
COMMENTS : Non-target victims of conibear-type body crushing
traps 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.
With respect to bats, DFG currently lists a dozen California
bats as Species of Special Concern and notes one is already
listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. According to
DFG, bats play a critical role in the ecosystem and are
important for pollination, seed dispersal, and pest control.
Just one of California's little brown bats, for example, can
catch and eat 600 mosquitoes per hour. DFG states that current
California law allows property owners or their 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 warns that the use of poisons
or fumigants on bats is not only illegal under both state and
federal law but that it is costly and ineffective because unless
access points are sealed, more bats will be back next year. DFG
notes that besides being unnecessarily cruel, excluding bats
during the maternity season can actually make problems worse
with dead baby bats creating unpleasant odors and attracting
insects.
One of the most confusing debates about this bill concerns its
solicitation restrictions. Existing law prohibits the
for-profit trapping of mammals for any reason other than
property or crop damage. This bill makes that prohibition clear
by requiring for-profit trappers of nuisance mammals to
acknowledge that they cannot solicit trapping business by
alleging that mammals which are not causing property or crop
SB 1480
Page 4
damaging should still be trapped because they pose an alleged
health or safety risk. This bill does not affect the current
ability of authorized state, federal or local agencies to trap
animals in response to dangerous disease outbreaks.
Supporters of this bill state that currently California
consumers have no way of confirming whether a perspective
trapper is licensed and are often overcharged for services they
might not need. Supporters advise that bad acting trappers
cause thousands of animals to suffer needlessly each year and
that cruel and inhumane methods to kill wildlife can also cause
non-targeted animals, such as pets, to fall victim. Supporters
note that many other professional contractors are required to
provide their clients with written contracts that summarize
relevant laws and consumer rights and that this bill will help
homeowners protect themselves, increase DFG licensing revenues,
and reduce DFG enforcement burdens by encouraging compliance.
With respect to this bill's bat provisions, supporters note that
the value of bats to U.S. agriculture is more than $3.7 billion
per year and that methods of bat removal other than exclusion
are not only ineffective but can result in high mortality of
bats and increased risk to human health and safety by causing
disoriented bats to come into contact with people and pets.
Opponents are concerned about the level of fees that might be
charged for class II licenses and find the consumer contract
requirements in this bill onerous and impractical. Opponents
state that while many other industries have specific regulations
relating to their field of work they are not required to list
each one of them at the top of their contracts. Opponents
advise that verbally explaining trapping services to clients and
filing out service reports detailing the services performed
should be enough. Some opponents also state that limiting
trapping to damage to property is too narrow while others would
like to continue to use larger conibear-type traps on land in
order to trap badgers.
This bill was amended in the Assembly Appropriations Committee
to: allow the use of larger conibear-type traps where the traps
are submerged, partially submerged, or placed in managed wetland
areas in order to trap beaver and muskrat; require the posting
of signs warning of danger to dogs from conibear traps; allow,
but not require, DFG to provide information and assistance with
bat exclusion; and, postpone the effective date of the class II
licensing and contracting requirements until July 1, 2013.
SB 1480
Page 5
With respect to badgers, 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. In addition, even if the provisions of this bill are
enacted, badgers causing crop or property damage could still be
taken by other methods, such as shot.
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0005189