Existing law authorizes the Fish and Game Commission to determine and fix the area or areas, the seasons and hours, the bag and possession limit, and the number of elk that may be taken under rules and regulations that the commission may adopt from time to time. Existing law authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue an elk tag upon payment of a fee and to deposit that fee into the Big Game Management Account.

This bill would require the commission, department, upon request, to engage in consultation meet with individual federally recognized Indian tribes in California regarding elk management issues. The bill would authorize the commission to allocate a specific number of elk tags to such an Indian tribe for the purpose of harvesting elk located within the defined territory of that tribe for purposes of subsistence, cultural or religious ceremonies, or tribal celebrations. California to discuss elk-related issues for elk located within the territory of the individual tribe. The bill would require the department, prior to an allocation of elk tags to an Indian tribe, department to work collaboratively collaboratively, and in good faith, with that tribe on the development of a science-based elk management strategy that includes tribal harvest for cultural, ceremonial, and subsistence purposes. to identify possible science-based solutions.

Existing law authorizes the Fish and Game Commission to determine and fix the area or areas, the seasons and hours, the bag and possession limit, and the number of elk that may be taken under rules and regulations that the commission may adopt from time to time. Existing law authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue an elk tag upon payment of a fee and to deposit that fee into the Big Game Management Account.

Existing law authorizes the Fish and Game Commission to determine and fix the area or areas, the seasons and hours, the bag and possession limit, and the number of elk that may be taken under rules and regulations that the commission may adopt from time to time.

This bill would require the commission to allocate a specific number of elk tags to federally-recognized Indian tribes in California for the purpose of cultural or religious ceremonies or celebrations.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 1792 (Wood) - Elk tags: federally recognized Indian tribes

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 1792 requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), upon request, to meet with individual federally recognized Indian tribes in California to discuss elk-related issues for elk located within the territory of the individual tribe.

Fiscal Impact:

Approximately $260,000 annually (Fish and Game Preservation Fund) to CDFW for tribal liaisons. (See staff comments)

Background:

The CDFW manages California's fish, wildlife, and plant resources. It also regulates hunting and sport fishing within the state. Each year, the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) sets license fees and take restrictions, as well as other regulations that the CDFW implements and enforces. California law requires that most licenses and other CDFW program fees are set at a level sufficient to cover administrative costs.

Under current law, an individual must obtain a hunting license prior to taking any bird or mammal, and a fishing license prior to taking any fish, reptiles, or amphibians. In many cases, additional tags, validations, or enhancements are required to take certain species or from certain areas.

Under existing law, the Commission is authorized to regulate the taking of elk, and to determine the area, season, hours, bag and possession limits, and number of elk that may be taken. Furthermore, the Commission may authorize the take of tule elk (a subspecies of elk found only in California) if population estimates exceed 2,000 animals, or the Legislature determines, based on reports prepared by CDFW, that suitable areas cannot be found in the state to accommodate that population in a healthy condition.

Money from an elk tag fee is deposited in the Big Game Management Account within the Fish and Game Preservation Fund. The current elk tag fee is $445.35 for residents and $1,361.20 for nonresidents. In addition, the Commission is required by law to authorize no more than three tags annually to be sold at auction for purposes of raising funds for programs and projects to benefit elk. Also, only one elk tag may be sold annually to nonresidents. In 2015, a total of 356 elk tags were given out through a lottery drawing.

According to background information provided by the author, elk are an integral part of Native American traditions. Currently, tribal members and hunters who want an elk tag purely for game have to go through the same process to obtain an elk tag. This is in contrast to fishing for salmon, which also has cultural significance for many tribes. Many tribes have entered into treaties with the federal government that reserve the tribes’ hunting and fishing rights for salmon.

In 2011, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-10-11, which provides, among other things, that it is the policy of the administration that every state agency and department implements effective government-to-government consultation with California Native American Tribes. The CDFW has adopted a policy on tribal consultation which states that its purpose is to create a means by which tribes and the CDFW can effectively work together to realize sustainably-managed natural resources of mutual interest. The policy states, among other things, that the CDFW will collaborate on solutions tailored to each tribe’s unique needs and capacity. The specific nature of the collaborations can range from informal information sharing, to a memorandum of understanding, to co-management with specific responsibilities and authorities.

Proposed Law:

This bill:

• Requires, the CDFW, upon request, to meet with individual federally recognized Indian tribes in California
• Requires the CDFW to work collaboratively, and in good faith, with the tribe to identify possible science-based solutions.

Staff Comments:

In the original version of this bill, a specific number of elk tags would have been allocated to federally-recognized Native American tribes in California. The bill was subsequently amended to instead require CDFW to meet, upon request, with individual federally recognized Indian tribes to discuss elk-related issues and to identify possible science-based solutions. However, the current version of the bill does not provide any guidance regarding what level of discussion is required or what specific scientific goals will inform these discussions. Also, no data is available regarding the number of inquiries or requests from tribes to discuss elk related issues, making it difficult to anticipate the level of interest in these discussions.

The CDFW anticipates initial implementation costs of approximately $264,000. This includes two Environmental Scientists (one tribal liaison for each for the Northern Region and Central Region) and one-time equipment costs. This staffing level assumes coordinators will need to work with the tribes and the Commission on developing the elk management plans, conducting site visits to help determine appropriate habitat management activities and sustainable harvest strategies, and processing Commission and other Department documents.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Fran Pavley, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 1792 Hearing Date: June 28, 2016

Subject: Elk tags: federally recognized Indian tribes

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is responsible for managing hunting and sport fishing within the state. Current law requires CDFW to issue hunting licenses to take birds or mammals and a fishing license to take fish, reptiles, or amphibians. In many cases, the license is the minimum level of certification a hunter or angler needs to take an animal. For some birds and mammals, including elk, CDFW issues tags to allow hunters to take specific animals from certain areas. Each year, the total number of tags issued by CDFW for each animal as well as the number of tags each licensee is eligible to receive is restricted. Similarly, CDFW requires report cards, stamps, or validations for certain fish and regions.

Under existing law, the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) is authorized to regulate the taking of elk, and to determine the area, season, hours, bag and possession limits, and number of elk that may be taken. Furthermore, FGC may authorize the take of tule elk (a subspecies of elk found only in California) if population estimates exceed 2,000 animals, or the Legislature determines, based on reports prepared by CDFW, that suitable areas cannot be found in the state to accommodate that population in a healthy condition.

Money from an elk tag fee is deposited in the Big Game Management Account within the Fish and Game Preservation Fund. The current elk tag fee is $445.35 for residents and $1,361.20 for nonresidents. In addition, FGC is required by law to authorize no more than three tags annually to be sold at auction for purposes of raising funds for programs and projects to benefit elk. Also, only one elk tag may be sold annually to nonresidents. In 2015, a total of 356 elk tags were given out through a lottery drawing.

According to CDFW’s website, the goals of CDFW’s elk management program are to maintain healthy elk herds, reestablish elk in suitable historic range, provide public educational and recreational opportunities involving elk, and to alleviate conflicts involving elk on private property.

According to background information provided by the author, elk are an integral part of Native American traditions. Currently, tribal members and hunters who want an elk tag purely for game have to go through the same process to obtain an elk tag. This is in contrast to fishing for salmon, which also has cultural significance for many tribes. Many tribes have entered into treaties with the federal government that reserve the tribes’ hunting and fishing rights for salmon.

In 2011, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-10-11, which provides, among other things, that it is the policy of the administration that every state agency and department shall implement effective government-to-government consultation with California Native American Tribes. The FGC has adopted a policy on tribal consultation which states that its purpose is to create a means by which tribes and the FGC can effectively work together to realize sustainably-managed natural resources of mutual interest. The policy states, among other things, that the FGC will collaborate on solutions tailored to each tribe’s unique needs and capacity. The specific nature of the collaborations can range from informal information sharing, to a memorandum of understanding, to co-management with specific responsibilities and authorities.

PROPOSED LAW

This bill would require CDFW, upon request, to meet with individual federally recognized Native American tribes in California, including but not limited to, tribes located within the Pacific Northwest of California, to discuss elk-related issues for elk located within the territory of the individual tribe. Furthermore, the bill would require CDFW to work collaboratively and in good faith with the tribe to identify possible science-based solutions.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

In support of this bill, the author states: “AB 1792 will require the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to meet with tribes to discuss elk related issues and come up with science based solutions. Elks are one of the many fundamental cornerstones interwoven within a tribe’s heritage. Native Americans use elk in funeral preparations, honoring elders of a tribe, and many other cultural celebrations. Fishing for salmon is an integral part of tribal culture and tribes have entered into treaties with the federal government that reserve the tribes’ hunting and fishing rights for salmon. Elks are very much like salmon when it comes to the traditions of Native Americans, but elks do not have the same designation as salmon. AB 1792 is a small step forward in addressing this disparity.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

None received.

COMMENTS

Elk in California

Three subspecies of elk live in California: Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni), and Tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannodes). The Tule elk are the smallest of the elk species in North America and are endemic to California. As many as 500,000 Tule elk are believed to have inhabited the state prior to the 1800s, when they were hunted almost to extinction. A law passed in 1873 protected the last remaining Tule elk, which were protected on one ranch. Various relocation efforts over the years have met with mixed success. In 2010, CDFW estimated in an environmental impact report (EIR) on elk hunting that there were at least 3,900 Tule elk statewide in 22 separate herds.

According to the CDFW 2010 EIR, Roosevelt elk were once distributed widely throughout northern California. According to the National Park Service, Roosevelt elk historically ranged from the San Francisco Bay Area to Vancouver, British Colombia in large numbers. Today they can be found from Humboldt County, California to Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Nearly extinct by 1925, the number of Roosevelt elk in California had dropped to as few as 15. One of the last Roosevelt elk herds was located in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park in northern California. Protection of habitat in the park and surrounding areas has allowed the California Roosevelt elk population to rebound. CDFW estimated in 2010 that the population of Roosevelt elk in California was about 4,500.

Rocky Mountain elk are native to the Rocky Mountains. According to the CDFW 2010 EIR, it is unclear whether Rocky Mountain elk occupied California prior to the arrival of Europeans. In 2010 there were four populations in California, with a total estimated population of 1,500 – 2,000. A population in the Warner Mountains in Modoc County in northeastern California arrived through natural migration from Oregon to California. Two smaller populations in southern California and one near Redding were established through translocation efforts.

What is the goal of this bill?

In the original version of this bill, a specific number of elk tags would have been allocated to federally-recognized Native American tribes in California. The bill was subsequently amended to instead require CDFW to meet, upon request, with individual federally recognized Indian tribes to discuss elk-related issues and to identify possible science-based solutions. The bill does not provide any guidance for how long those conversations should take, what the outcome of the conversations will be, or what specific scientific goals will inform these discussions.

Prior and related legislation

AB 52 (Gatto), Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014, required lead agencies under CEQA to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if requested.

SB 685 (Evans) of 2011 proposed to authorize Native American tribes to submit proposals for co-management of marine species within marine protected areas designated under the Marine Life Protection Act. That bill died in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.

AB 1729 (Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee), Chapter 285 Statutes of 2007, among other changes, revised and clarified provisions allowing a member of a Native American tribe to possess certain feathers, as defined, for tribal, spiritual, or cultural purposes.

SUPPORT

Northern California Tribal Chairman’s Association, including the following tribes:

Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation (Sponsor)

Bear River Band Roherville

Big Lagoon Rancheria

Blue Lake Rancheria

Elk Valley Rancheria

Hoopa Valley Tribe

Karuk Tribe

Pitt River Tribe

Quartz Valley

Redding Rancheria

Resighini Rancheria

Susanville Rancheria

Trinidad Rancheria

Wiyot Tribe

OPPOSITION

None received.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1792

Author:(Wood)

As Amended Ver:May 31, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), upon request, to meet with individual federally recognized Indian tribes in California, including but not limited to, tribes located within the Pacific Northwest of California, to discuss elk-related issues for elk located within the territory of the individual tribe. Requires DFW to work collaboratively and in good faith with the tribe to identify possible science-based solutions.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to authorize the taking of elk, and to determine and fix the area, season, hours, bag and possession limits, and number of elk that may be taken. Authorizes DFW to issue an elk tag upon payment of a fee. Requires a hunting license and payment of a fee to obtain an elk tag, which is then allocated by lottery, for the taking of an elk.
2. Requires DFW to develop a statewide elk management plan that emphasizes maintaining sufficient elk populations in perpetuity while considering specified factors.
3. Provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of the Fish and Game Code are not applicable to California Indians whose names are inscribed upon the tribal rolls, while on the reservation of that tribe and under those circumstances where the code was not applicable to them immediately before the effective date of a specific federal law enacted in 1953. Provides that no Indian to whom that section applies shall be prosecuted for a violation of any provision of the Fish and Game Code occurring in the places and under the circumstances described, but further provides that nothing in that section prohibits or restricts the prosecution of an Indian for violation of a provision of the Fish and Game Code prohibiting the sale of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, or reptile.
4. Authorizes the Yurok Tribe to take fish from the Klamath River for subsistence purposes. Authorizes Native Americans whose ancestors originated in an area adjacent to two specific stretches of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers to engage in traditional gathering activities, including fish and other natural foods and materials for regalia and ceremonial purposes. Provides that Indians taking fish and game under that section shall do so in accordance with rules and regulations of the FGC and under permit issued by the DFW.
5. Requires as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that the lead agency for a proposed project consult with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if requested.

FISCAL EFFECT: Potential, likely absorbable costs of less than $150,000 per year.

COMMENTS: This bill was introduced in response to concerns raised by Native American tribal members regarding access to elk tags and management of elk on tribal territories. The initial version of this bill would have required that a specific number of elk tags, as determined by the FGC, be allocated to federally-recognized Native American tribes in California. As amended, this bill instead requires the DFW, upon request, to meet with individual tribes to discuss elk-related issues, and to work collaboratively and in good faith with the tribe to identify possible science-based solutions.

Background information provided by the author indicates that elk are interwoven within the ancient traditions of Native Americans, but that obtaining elk tags have been difficult for many tribes. Right now, tribal members and hunters who want an elk tag purely for game, have to go through the same process to obtain an elk tag before permission is granted to take elk. Fishing for salmon is an integral part of tribal culture and tribes have entered into treaties with the federal government that reserve the tribes' hunting and fishing rights for salmon. Elk are much like salmon when it comes to the traditions of Native Americans, but elk do not have the same designation as salmon. According to the author, this bill is a small step forward in guaranteeing that tribes have the ability to obtain elk for traditional and ceremonial purposes.

The DFW indicates that it is in the process of developing a statewide management plan for elk that has not yet been completed. According to the DFW's website, the goals of DFW's current elk management program are to maintain healthy elk herds, reestablish elk in suitable historic range, provide public educational and recreational opportunities involving elk, and to alleviate conflicts involving elk on private property.

Background information provided by the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation and the Karuk Tribe note that both tribes have a long history of using elk as a food source and for cultural and ceremonial purposes. Although the habitats of several elk herds lie within their tribal territories, tribal members for the most part do not participate in the hunt and compete for elk tags because the regulatory process is seen as diminishing tribal sovereignty. Both tribes expressed an interest in working with the state on cooperative approaches to elk management on tribal lands.

In 2011 Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-10-11, which provides, among other things, that it is the policy of the administration that every state agency and department shall implement effective government-to-government consultation with California Indian Tribes. The FGC has adopted a policy on tribal consultation which states that its purpose is to create a means by which tribes and the FGC can effectively work together to realize sustainably-managed natural resources of mutual interest. Among other things, the policy states that the FGC will collaborate with tribes on areas or subjects of mutual interest and pursue partnerships with tribes to collaborate on solutions tailored to each tribe's unique needs and capacity.

Analysis Prepared by: Diane Colborn / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0003300

Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1792

Author:(Wood) – As Amended Ver:March 30, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the Fish and Game Commission (FGC), upon request, to consult with individual federally-recognized Indian tribes regarding Elk management. This bill allows FGC to allocate a specific number elk tags to the tribes for the purpose of cultural or religious ceremonies and celebrations.

Prior to an allocation of elk tags to a tribe, this bill requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to work collaboratively with the tribe to develop an elk management strategy.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Initial costs of $458,000 (Fish and Game Preservation Fund) for DFW for staff and one time equipment costs. Ongoing annual costs of $359,000 (Fish and Game Preservation Fund)

Because this bill does not include a fee or funding structure to implement the new Elk Management Plans, it may have negative impacts for the Fish and Game Preservation Fund.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, elk are interwoven within ancient Native American tradition, but obtaining the necessary elk tags has been difficult. Currently, every person seeking an elk tag must go through the same process regardless of if the take is for game or other purposes.

This bill allows FCG to set aside a specific allocation of elk tags for Native Americans seeking to harvest them for cultural or ceremonial reasons.

1. Background. Currently, a person must have a hunting license and pay a fee to obtain an elk tag to allow for its take. The base statutory fee for an elk tag is $165 for residents and not less than $1,050 for nonresidents. With annual adjustments, the current tag fee is $445.35 for residents and $1,361.20 for nonresidents. Only one elk tag may be sold annually to nonresidents. In addition, not more than three tags may be authorized annually to be sold at auction for purposes of raising funds for programs and projects to benefit elk. The total elk tag quota for 2015 was 356.

DFW indicates it is in the process of developing a statewide management plan for elk. According to the DFW, the goals of the elk management program are to maintain healthy elk herds, reestablish elk in suitable historic range, provide public educational and recreational opportunities involving elk, and to alleviate conflicts involving elk on private property.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 29, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Marc Levine, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1792 (

Author:Wood) – As Introduced Ver:February 4, 2016

SUBJECT: Elk tags: Indian tribes

SUMMARY: Requires the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to allocate a specific number of elk tags to federally-recognized Indian tribes in California for the purpose of cultural or religious ceremonies and celebrations.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the FGC to authorize the taking of elk, and to determine and fix the area, season, hours, bag and possession limits, and number of elk that may be taken. Authorizes the FGC to authorize the take of tule elk if the average of the Department of Fish and Wildlife's (DFW's) statewide tule elk population estimates exceed 2,000 animals, or the Legislature determines, based on reports prepared by DFW, that suitable areas cannot be found in the state to accommodate that population in a healthy condition.
2. Authorizes DFW to issue an elk tag upon payment of a fee, which is deposited in the Big Game Management Account within the Fish and Game Preservation Fund. Requires a hunting license and payment of the fee to obtain a tag authoring the taking of an elk. The base statutory fee for an elk tag is $165 for residents and not less than $1,050 for nonresidents. The fees are adjusted annually based on the Implicit Price Deflator. With annual adjustments, the current tag fee is $445.35 for residents and $1,361.20 for nonresidents. Only one elk tag may be sold annually to nonresidents. In addition, not more than three tags may be authorized annually to be sold at auction for purposes of raising funds for programs and projects to benefit elk.
3. Requires DFW to develop a statewide elk management plan that emphasizes maintaining sufficient elk populations in perpetuity while considering specified factors, including: the characteristics and geographic range of each elk subspecies, including Rocky Mountain Elk, Roosevelt Elk, and Tule Elk; habitat conditions and trends; major factors affecting elk, including conflicts with other land uses; management activities necessary to achieve the goals of the plan and alleviate property damage; identification of high priority areas for elk management; and methods for determining population viability and minimum numbers needed to sustain local herds.
4. Authorizes DFW to relocate tule elk, and requires DFW when relocating tule elk to locate them in areas suitable to the elk, and to cooperate with federal and local agencies and private property owners in relocating elk to suitable areas. Requires when property damage occurs that emphasis be placed on managing each tule elk herd at a biologically sound level through the use of relocation, regulated hunting, or other appropriate methods as determined by DFW in accordance with the statewide elk management plan, and after consulting with landowners.
5. Provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of the Fish and Game Code are not applicable to California Indians whose names are inscribed upon the tribal rolls, while on the reservation of that tribe and under those circumstances where the code was not applicable to them immediately before the effective date of a specific federal law enacted in 1953. Provides that no Indian to whom that section applies shall be prosecuted for a violation of any provision of the Fish and Game Code occurring in the places and under the circumstances described, but further provides that nothing in that section prohibits or restricts the prosecution of an Indian for violation of a provision of the Fish and Game Code prohibiting the sale of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, or reptile.
6. Authorizes the Yurok Tribe to take fish from the Klamath River for subsistence purposes. Authorizes Native Americans whose ancestors originated in an area adjacent to two specific stretches of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers to engage in traditional gathering activities, including fish and other natural foods and materials for regalia and ceremonial purposes. Further provides that Indians taking fish and game under that section shall do so in accordance with rules and regulations of the FGC and under permit issued by the DFW.
7. Established a pilot project in the 1980s to encourage efforts of the state and the Covelo Indian Community of the Round Valley Indian Reservation to reach a mutual agreement regarding Indian subsistence fishing. Stated legislative findings and declarations regarding the hope that the pilot project would provide an incentive for similar negotiated agreements with other tribes. Stated legislative findings and declarations that jurisdiction over the protection and development of natural resources, especially fish, is of great importance to both the State of California and California Indian Tribes.
8. Requires as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that the lead agency for a proposed project consult with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if requested.
9. Makes it an affirmative defense to a violation of state law prohibiting the possession of feathers of nongame birds, that the possessor is an enrolled member of a federally recognized Native American tribe or nonfederally recognized California Native American tribe listed on the California Tribal Consultation List maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: This bill requires the allocation of a specific number of elk hunting tags, as determined by the FGC, to federally-recognized Native American tribes in California.

1. Author's Statement: The author states this bill would require that a specific allocation of elk tags be set aside for Native Americans seeking to take them for cultural or ceremonial reasons. Elk are interwoven within the ancient traditions of Native Americans, but obtaining the necessary elk tags have been difficult for many tribes. Right now, tribal members and hunters who want an elk tag purely for game, have to go through the same process of obtaining an elk tag before permission is granted to take elk. Fishing for salmon is an integral part of tribal culture and tribes have entered into treaties with the federal government that reserve the tribes' hunting and fishing rights for salmon. Elk are much like salmon when it comes to the traditions of Native Americans, but elk do not have the same designation as salmon. This bill is a small step forward in guaranteeing that tribes have the ability to obtain elk for traditional and ceremonial purposes.
2. Background:
   
   a) Elk in California: According to the DFW website, there are three species of elk in California; Roosevelt (Cervus elaphus roosevelti), Rocky Mountain (Cervus elaphus nelsoni), and Tule (Cervus elaphus nannodes) elk. The Tule elk are the smallest of the elk species in North America and are endemic to California. As many as 500,000 Tule elk are believed to have inhabited the state prior to the 1800s, when they were hunted almost to extinction. A law passed in 1873 protected the last remaining Tule elk, which were protected on one ranch. Various relocation efforts over the years have met with mixed success. In 2010 the DFW estimated in an environmental impact report (EIR) on elk hunting that there were at least 3,900 Tule elk statewide in 22 separate herds.
   
   According to the DFW 2010 EIR, Roosevelt elk were once distributed widely throughout northern California. According to the National Park Service, Roosevelt elk historically ranged from the San Francisco Bay Area to Vancouver, British Colombia in large numbers. Today their range is limited from Humboldt County, California to Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Nearly Extinct by 1925, the number of Roosevelt elk in California had dropped to as few as 15. One of the last Roosevelt elk herds was located in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park in northern California. Protection of habitat in the park and surrounding areas has allowed the California Roosevelt elk population to rebound. The DFW estimated in 2010 that the population of Roosevelt elk in California was about 4,500.
   
   Rocky Mountain elk are native to the Rocky Mountains. According to the DFW 2010 EIR, it is unclear whether Rocky Mountain elk occupied California prior to the arrival of Europeans. In 2010 there were 4 populations in California, with a total estimated population of 1,500 to 2,000. A population in the Warner Mountains in Modoc County in northeastern California arrived through natural migration from Oregon to California. Two smaller populations in southern California and one near Redding were established through translocation efforts.
   
   The total elk tag quota for 2015 was 356. The tags are issued through lottery drawings. A few additional tags are issued through nonprofit fund raising auctions, with the proceeds going to elk conservation. The DFW indicates that is in the process of developing a statewide management plan for elk that has not yet been completed. According to the DFW's website, the goals of DFW's current elk management program are to maintain healthy elk herds, reestablish elk in suitable historic range, provide public educational and recreational opportunities involving elk, and to alleviate conflicts involving elk on private property.
   
   b) Input from Tribes: Background information provided by the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation notes that the tribe has a long historical relationship of stewardship with their tribal lands in California, and have relied on the lands for sustenance, including hunting, fishing and gathering. The Constitution of the tribe delegates responsibility to protect and preserve wildlife and natural resources, and to regulate hunting, fishing and trapping within the Tolowa Nation, to the Tribal Council. As such, the Tribe has sought the opportunity to enter into cooperative agreements to restore ecological balance to elk herds located within the Tolowa Dee-ni' lands and jurisdiction. Background information provided by the tribe further notes that concerns have been raised by residents of Del Norte County regarding a perceived overpopulation of Roosevelt Elk. They assert that a growing elk population with minimal management has been a cause of concern for tribal and non-tribal community members. The Tolowa Dee-ni' indicates it is a self-governance tribe that is eligible to develop and enter into self-governance agreements with other government entities. The Tribe indicates it currently has a co-management agreement with national and state park agencies in Del Norte County. The tribe asserts that an agreement for co-management of elk on tribal lands would allow the DFW and California tribes to better define their relationship and best serve the stewardship of aboriginal lands.

The Karuk Tribe, California's third largest tribe, similarly notes that elk is a traditionally important food source for the Karuk People of the mid-Klamath River Basin. The tribe indicates that Karuk tribal members have managed elk habitat and hunted elk for food in their aboriginal territory since time immemorial. However, the Tribe notes that despite being a federally recognized self-governance tribe, the laws and regulations that pertain to Karuk harvest of elk on aboriginal lands remains poorly defined. The Karuk tribe is not a reservation tribe, but is a federally recognized tribe and asserts retained rights to hunting and gathering in their aboriginal territory.

Karuk land management practices include seasonal application of prescribed fire to support elk habitat and regulation of take for subsistence and ceremonial use based on seasonal ecological indicators and herd population dynamics. In the 1800s nearly all elk were extirpated from Karuk territory. Beginning in the 1980s Roosevelt Elk were re-introduced into the Klamath National Forest and the Marble Mountain Wilderness. Since reintroduction elk herds have increased and there are now at least 4 herds with a total population of 1,500 to 4,000 elk in the region.

The Karuk note that a regulated elk hunt was initiated by DFW in 1995 and that DFW gives out about 50 Marble Mountain elk tags per year. However, although the habitats of four of the herds lie within Karuk aboriginal territory, Karuk tribal members for the most part do not participate in the hunt and compete for the tags because the regulatory process is seen as diminishing tribal sovereignty. Managing and harvesting elk for subsistence purposes is seen by the Karuk as an important step towards expanding access to cultural foods and reestablishing traditional food management and distribution. Elk are identified as an important cultural and ceremonial resource and an ecosystem management indicator in the Karuk Department of Natural Resources' latest Eco-Cultural Resource Management Plan.

The Karuk tribe acknowledges that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service claims jurisdiction over most of the elk habitat in Karuk aboriginal territory, and the DFW claims jurisdiction over the wildlife of the State. The Karuk Tribe in their Constitution claims concurrent jurisdiction over all lands, waters, natural resources, cultural resources, and wildlife within the Tribe's territory. The Karuk indicate that while the latest elk management plan for the Klamath National Forest (2007), co-authored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the DFW, acknowledges the importance of indigenous ecological knowledge and stewardship practices, including the use of fire to maintain elk habitat, there is currently no legal or policy framework or process for co-management. They also assert that while current state law recognizes the rights of Karuk tribal members to take game for ceremonial purposes (see Government Code Section 186), that authority has not been used because, to the Karuk tribe, it implies diminished sovereignty by requiring a permit, and because the narrowly defined area described in the statute is not currently used by elk.

c) Tribal Consultation Policy: In 2011 Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-10-11, which provides, among other things, that it is the policy of the administration that every state agency and department shall implement effective government-to-government consultation with California Indian Tribes. The FGC has adopted a policy on tribal consultation which states that its purpose is to create a means by which tribes and the FGC can effectively work together to realize sustainably-managed natural resources of mutual interest. Among other things, the policy states that the FGC will collaborate with tribes and:

"In areas or subjects of mutual interest, FGC will pursue partnerships with tribes to collaborate on solutions tailored to each tribe's unique needs and capacity. The structure of these collaborative efforts can range from informal information sharing, to a memorandum of understanding with more specific agreements regarding working relationships and desired outcomes, to co-management agreements with specific responsibilities and authorities."

1. Prior and related Legislation: AB 52 (Gatto), Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014, required lead agencies under CEQA to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if requested.
   
   SB 685 (Evans) of 2011 proposed to authorize Native American tribes to submit proposals for co-management of marine species within marine protected areas designated under the Marine Life Protection Act. That bill died in the Senate Natural Resources & Water Committee.
2. Support Arguments: The Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, expresses support for legislation that promotes the co-management authority of federally recognized tribes in the management of California's elk herds with the state. However, they request amendments to this bill that would replace the existing language of the bill with language requiring DFW to negotiate and enter into agreements with federally recognized tribes to co-manage elk herds and establish herd-specific harvest allocations for elk located within the territory of the individual tribe. The language suggested by the tribe would require negotiated tribal allocations to be managed pursuant to tribal ordinance, and for the DFW and the tribe to agree to share information and coordinate mutually beneficial habitat management programs for elk herds on tribal lands. The author has not agreed to accept these specific amendments, but continues to be engaged in discussions with the Tribes and others on language.
3. Opposition Arguments: The California Waterfowl Association in opposition to this bill raises concerns that allocation of tags to tribes will make it more difficult for other sportsmen to participate in elk hunting, and emphasizes that hunters, DFW, landowners, and nonprofit conservation groups have been engaged in longstanding efforts to restore and enhance elk habitat and numbers. Concerns have also been expressed by some tribes who favor a co-management approach over the current language in this bill. The California Forestry Association and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation do not have an oppose position on this bill but sent letters of concern. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is concerned that the number of tags allocated to tribes could exceed the number of elk that could be taken while managing their recovery in the state, and that the number of tags available to the general public would be reduced. They note that there were over 35,000 applicants in 2014 for only a little over 300 tags issued. They point to the need for additional definition and clarification as to the conditions under which elk could be taken by the tribes. Concerns have also been raised that any allocation of tags to tribes should be biologically based, consistent with state and federal elk management plans and goals for elk recovery, and clearly define the boundaries of the areas where tribal hunting may occur. The California Forestry Association also expresses similar concerns that allocating tags to tribes could decrease the number of elk tags currently available to the public or landowners and have a negative effect on elk populations, but expresses a willingness to work with the author.
4. Proposed Amendments: The tribes have proposed amendments to this bill that would require the DFW and FGC to negotiate with the tribes to co-manage and establish herd-specific harvest allocations for elk located within the territory of the individual tribe. The author and interested parties have not yet finalized language acceptable to all parties. The FGC also indicates that their tribal committee will be meeting next month to discuss this issue. With the understanding that further work is needed on this bill to reach consensus, the author and committee may wish to consider an amendment at this time that would require the FGC to engage in consultation with the tribes regarding elk management and appropriate harvest allocations, as follows:
   
   (f) Upon request, the commission shall engage in consultation with individual federally recognized tribes regarding elk management issues, and may allocate a specific number of elk tags to federally-recognized Indian tribes in California for the purpose of harvesting elk located within the defined territory of the individual tribe for purposes of subsistence, cultural or religious ceremonies, or tribal celebrations. Prior to allocation of elk tags to tribes pursuant to this section, the Department of Fish and Wildlife shall work collaboratively with the tribes on development of a science-based elk management strategy which includes tribal harvest for cultural, ceremonial and subsistence purposes.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation (with amendments)

Opposition

California Waterfowl Association

Analysis Prepared by: Diane Colborn / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096