BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2013-2014 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 2105 HEARING DATE: June 10, 2014
AUTHOR: Frazier URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 2, 2014 CONSULTANT: Toni Lee
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Big game mammals: bighorn sheep.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Existing law defines "taking" as hunting, pursuing, catching,
capturing, killing, or attempting to accomplish those actions
(Fish and Game Code (FGC) �86). The taking or possessing of
fully protected mammals or parts thereof is prohibited (FGC
�4700). While the list of fully protected mammals generally
includes bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), the Nelson (also
referred to as the desert bighorn) subspecies (Ovis canadensis
nelsoni) may be taken under specified circumstances (FGC
�4902(b), Ch. 745, Stats. 1986).
California is home to two distinct subspecies of bighorn sheep:
the Sierra Nevada (Ovis canadensis sierrae) and the Nelson.
Nelson bighorns are charismatic mammalian megafauna found in the
dry desert mountains of southeastern California. Due to
conservation measures initiated in the 1960s, total Nelson
bighorn populations doubled to about 4,000 individuals by 1993
(the historical number of bighorn sheep is unknown). Conversely,
the peninsular population of Nelson bighorns has experienced
declines. Because peninsular Nelson and Sierra Nevada bighorns
are protected under both the federal and state Endangered
Species Acts, only a certain portion of the Nelson subspecies is
available for taking.
Exiting law grants the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW)
authority to issue for a fee a certain number of tags specified
by the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) that serve as
a license to take a game animal including pronghorn antelope
(FGC �331 et seq.), elk (FGC �332 et seq.), mule deer (FGC �4330
et seq.), and Nelson bighorn sheep (FGC �4902 et seq.). DFW and
CFGC are required to analyze all fees for tags every five years
1
and recommend to the Legislature adjustments to reflect
inflation (FGC �713). Fees are deposited into the Big Game
Management Account (BGMA) within the Fish and Game Preservation
Fund (FGPF), unless otherwise provided.
The process for obtaining a big game tag differs depending on
the species and type of tag. An individual may acquire up to two
deer tags per year through outright purchase or through entering
drawings for special tags. Antelope, elk, and bighorn sheep tags
are primarily allocated via a drawing system and purchased for a
set amount. In addition, CFGC must direct DFW to annually
reserve a specified amount of deer, antelope, elk, and bighorn
sheep game tags for fundraising auctions that are often executed
through nonprofit conservation groups supporting the interests
of hunters. Statute limits the number of available auction tags
for antelope, elk, deer, and bighorn sheep to a maximum of 1% of
total available tags, 3, 10, and 3 tags respectively. The actual
number issued depends on conservation status of each species.
Each fall, DFW requests proposals from interested conservation
nonprofit organizations to auction these tags. Auction tags are
not subject to fee limits and have typically sold for around
$50,000-100,000 per bighorn sheep tag or $5,000-20,000 for other
tags. During the most recent auction period, a coveted bighorn
tag sold for $170,000.
License fees available from non-government agents include a 5%
license agent handing fee levied on the base fee. In addition,
license fees also include a 3% nonrefundable application fee
($7.50 maximum per item) on the base fee. 2014 base tag prices
are:
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Animal | Resident | Nonresident |
|------------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| Antelope | $136.75 | $424.00 |
|------------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| Elk | $411.50 | $1,272.50 |
|------------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| Deer | $24 (first), $31.25 | $248.50 (first), $248.50 |
| | (second) | (second) |
|------------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| Bighorn | $388.00 |$500 |
| Sheep | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of bighorn sheep tag fees, all of the above
values are adjusted for inflation. In other states, prices for
resident and nonresident bighorn sheep tags range from $30-$513
and $507.50-$3,180, respectively.
2
The total number of tags purchased for 2013 are:
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Animal | Resident | Nonresident |
|------------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| Antelope | 199 | 0 |
|------------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| Elk | 410 | 4 |
|------------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| Deer | 143,697 (first), 40,172 | 946 (first), 56 (second) |
| | (second) | |
|------------+--------------------------+--------------------------|
| Bighorn | 18 |4 |
| Sheep | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
Although populations of antelope, elk, and deer have somewhat
increased since the Gold Rush (1848-1855), current numbers are
far lower than historical values. For example, deer populations
peaked in the 1960s at 700,000-1,000,000 individuals and have
since slowly declined. DFW scientists attribute this trend to
long-term habitat degradation.
In 2012, SB 1166 (Berryhill) contained nearly identical language
allowing nonprofits to recoup their costs or up to 10% of the
sale price. DFW opposed this legislation due to concerns that
federal entities might see this retention as a diversion of
funds, placing $10 million in federal funding in jeopardy. The
bill was amended against the wishes of the author to change the
vendor fee to a flat 2% in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill:
1.Makes various legislative findings and declarations related to
wildlife-dependent recreation.
2.Authorizes a nonprofit organization selling fundraising tags
designated by DFW to assist in the sale of big game auction
tags to retain 5% of the sale price of each tag and applicable
credit card fees as a reasonable vendor fee.
3.Requires the nonprofit organization to send DFW within 30 days
of the tag sale date:
A check for 95% of the total auction sale price
An itemized receipt showing the tag sale price and the
5% reduction and credit card fees retained as a vendor fee
1.Sets the fee for a Nelson bighorn ram tag at $400 for
residents and $1,500 for nonresidents, adjusted annually to
3
reflect changes in the Implicit Price Deflator.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The California Chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation (CA WSF)
state that the price of a non-resident sheep tag has been set in
statute at $500 and has not been allowed to increase with
inflation or demand since 1986. This bill would "bring the cost
of a non-resident sheep tag current with inflation, in-line with
the cost of similar non-resident sheep tags in other states, and
allow it to adjust annually with inflation and demand." In
addition, CA WSF asserts that DFW looks to hunting-related
nonprofit conservation organizations to partner in the sale of
tags within the community having the greatest interest to
generate the absolute highest return. Rising costs of this
partnership are an increasing disincentive for these nonprofits
to partner with DFW.
The California Sportsman's Lobby, Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition
of California, and Safari Club International (SCI) argue that
allowing a non-profit organization selling a deer, elk,
antelope, or bighorn sheep fundraising tag to keep 5% of the
sales price as a vendor fee, plus credit card costs, is
"appropriate." They contend that, "the ability to recover tag
sales overhead costs will encourage more qualified SCI chapters
to participate in this fundraising program for the department
and to expend a maximum effort to realize the most revenue
possible."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The Public Interest Coalition argues that this bill will wrongly
reduce California government's revenue streams with sales
commissions and fees. If private vendors sell tags, then
commissions and applicable credit card fees must be added to the
final cost to ensure no net loss in fees to the state. The
coalition also questions the findings and declarations, stating
that they rely on a suspect survey that was coordinated by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but was requested by the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, rendering the results
biased. In addition, they note that the percentage of
Californians purchasing hunting licenses and tags is less than
1%.
COMMENTS
1.The 5% vendor fee is unrelated to the cost of the auction.
Because tags are often auctioned at events serving multiple
purposes, the financial impact on nonprofit organizations
remains unclear. The Assembly Appropriations Committee
4
analysis of SB 1166 from 2012 notes that non-profit vendors
were willingly selling the tags, often at events requiring an
admission fee. A system wherein DFW reimburses non-profits for
their actual expenses may be more prudent, but practically
difficult.
2.It is not clear whether the 5% vendor fee would be calculated
before or after deducting any credit card fees. An amendment
is needed to specify that credit card fees will be deducted
from the sale price before calculating the 5% vendor fee.
3.In an opposition letter to SB 1166 from 2012, DFW recommended
reducing the 10% vendor fee to 5%. Allowing nonprofits to
retain credit card fees would potentially increase this
percentage above 5%. For example, assuming the current 1.51%
Visa processing fee plus a base of $0.10 applies, the recent
$170,000 bighorn sheep tag sale would allow the nonprofit
organization to retain about $2,600 in credit card fees plus
about $8,400 in vendor fees (assuming credit card fees are
deducted before calculating the vendor fee).
4.As of 2012, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, numerous
Native American Nations, and several areas in Canada and
Mexico allow nonprofits to retain 5-25% of the tag sale price.
States that do not allow nonprofits to retain any portion of
big game animal fundraising auction proceeds include Arizona,
Nevada, and New Mexico.
5.Several of the legislative findings require amendments to
improve accuracy and formatting. For example, the legislative
finding in Section 1(b)(3) of the bill erroneously states that
wildlife viewers spent $45.7 billion dollars in 2011 (the
actual amount was $55 billion).
6.This bill requires nonprofits to send money to DFW,
specifically by check. The reasoning behind this specificity
is unclear and the committee may wish to delete this
requirement.
7.Currently, Alaska allows nonprofits to retain 10% of an
auction game tag as a vendor fee. HB 161, a 2013 bill that
would have increased this value to 100%, but was amended down
to 30%, has already passed through the Alaskan legislature and
is awaiting approval from the governor. The sponsors of that
bill argue that increasing the vendor fee is necessary to
encourage nonprofits to participate in the auction process.
5
Should interested parties continue to advocate for
increasingly high vendor fee percentages, the legislature may
choose to reevaluate the benefits of the fundraising game tag
auction.
8.California's pronghorn antelope historically exceeded 500,000
individuals and ranged throughout the Central Valley. Today
4,000 individuals these animals remain and are found in the
northeastern corner of the state. California's three elk
subspecies historically occupied much of the central and
northern parts of the state with populations of tule elk
estimated at 500,000 individuals. Due to the expansion of
settlements, the Roosevelt and Rocky Mountain elk range has
diminished to the northern areas of the state (estimates of
6,500 and 1,500-2,000 individuals, respectively), while the
tule elk is now isolated within small pockets in the Coast
Mountain Ranges with 4,000 individuals statewide.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
In the legislative findings, delete paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and
17 and make minor changes to paragraphs 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14,
15, and 19 to improve the accuracy of these statements.
AMENDMENT 2
In the legislative findings beginning with paragraph 4, change
all paragraphs to subsections.
AMENDMENT 3
In FGC �3953(b) strike out the phrase "a check for," delete all
text after "sale price of the tag," and insert, "less any
applicable credit card fees with an itemized receipt showing the
sale price and the 5-percent reduction and any reimbursement for
credit card fees retained by the nonprofit organization as a
vendor's fee."
SUPPORT
California Chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation (Sponsor)
Black Brant Group
California Deer Association
California Sportsman's Lobby
California Waterfowl Association
Gaines & Associates
Mule Deer Foundation
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California
Safari Club International
6
OPPOSITION
Public Interest Coalition
7