Existing law requires the Fish and Game Commission to form a marine resources committee and a wildlife resources committee from its membership. Existing law requires each committee to consist of at least one commissioner and requires each committee to report to the commission from time to time on its activities and to make recommendations on the applicable resource matters considered by the commission.

This bill would also require the commission to form a tribal committee from its membership consisting of at least one commissioner and would require the committee to report to the commission from time to time on its activities and to make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the commission.

Existing law requires the Fish and Game Commission to form a marine resources committee and a wildlife resources committee from its membership. Existing law requires each committee to consist of at least one commissioner and requires each committee to report to the commission from time to time on its activities and to make recommendations on the applicable resource matters considered by the commission.

This bill would also require the commission to form a tribal committee from its membership consisting of at least one commissioner and would require the committee to report to the commission from time to time on its activities and to make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the commission.

Existing law requires the Fish and Game Commission to form a marine resources committee and a wildlife resources committee from its membership. Existing law requires each committee to consist of at least one commissioner and requires each committee to report to the commission from time to time on its activities and to make recommendations on the applicable resource matters considered by the commission.

This bill would also require the commission to form a tribal committee from its membership consisting of at least one commissioner and would require the committee to report to the commission from time to time on its activities and to make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the commission.

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 161

Author:(McGuire)

As Introduced Ver:January 19, 2017

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 40-0

SUBJECT: Fish and Game Commission: tribal committee

SUMMARY: Would require the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to form a tribal committee from its membership, consistent with the practices used in the formation of marine and wildlife resources committees. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the FGC to form a Tribal Committee from its membership, consistent with existing committees;
2. Requires the committee to report to the FGC from time to time on its activities and to make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the FGC.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the FGC as a state entity with a wide variety of responsibilities including formulation of general policies for the conduct of the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW); establishment of hunting and fishing seasons; regulation of protected areas; listing and de-listing of species under the California Endangered Species Act; prescribing terms and conditions for licenses and permits related to species take (including hunting and fishing); and other, related issues.
2. Requires the FGC to form a marine resources committee and a wildlife resources committee from its membership.
3. Requires each committee to consist of at least one commissioner and report to the FGC from time to time on its activities and recommendations.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: Increased DFW costs of up to $150,000 annually (Fish and Game Preservation Fund, Environmental License Fund or GF) for one Senior Environmental Scientist position and the associated overhead expenses to staff the FGC and, as practicable, the DFW.

COMMENTS:

Background: The California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) was the first wildlife conservation agency in the United States, predating the U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries. In 1870, the Board of Fish Commissioners, the forerunner of the modern day Fish and Game Commission, was established to provide for the restoration and preservation of fish in California waters. In 1909 the Board of Fish Commissioners' name was changed to the Fish and Game Commission, which reflected the growing importance of game conservation. The complex fish and game regulations and administration of today date from these years when the FGC was given more authority to undertake new responsibilities in the areas of conservation.

The FGC conducts its business at twelve meetings a year, alternating decision meetings with its Marine Resources Committee and Wildlife Resources Committee meetings. These meetings span from one to two days, and are strategically located throughout the state to encourage public outreach and participation. The annual meeting schedule must be announced sixty days prior to the first meeting of the calendar year, though it remains subject to change.

Currently the FGC has three committees: the Marine Resources Committee (MRC) and Wildlife Resources Committee (WRC), which were created in statute (Sections 105 and 106 of the Fish and Game Code), and the Tribal Committee. Each is chaired or co-chaired by no more than two Commissioners. These assignments are generally made annually by a majority vote of the FGC at the time of election of the President.

The goal of these committees is to allow presentations and discussions on regulatory proposals that allow greater time and detail than what is possible at full FGC meetings. The committee meetings are less formal in nature and provide for additional access to the commission. The committees follow the requirements of Bagley-Keene and the committee chairs cannot take action independent of the full FGC. Instead, the chairs make recommendations to the full FGC at regularly scheduled meetings.

The FGC is allowed to form ad hoc committees to temporarily deal with short term issues that may arise. The Tribal Committee, while not created in statute, meets at a similar frequency to other FGC committees.

According to the Senate Floor Analysis, "The FGC currently has a policy of collaboration with California Native American Tribes to promote sustainable management of natural resources of mutual interest. Many tribes have also entered into treaties with the federal government that reserve the tribes' hunting and fishing rights for salmon. Therefore, the FGC and tribal groups may have concurrent or overlapping jurisdictions related to sport fish and game wildlife. This scenario presents opportunities for consultation and potential for policy collaboration between Native American Tribes and the FGC. In 2011, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-10-11, which stated, in part, 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 specific nature of the collaborations can range from informal information sharing, to a memorandum of understanding, to co-management with specific responsibilities and authorities."

Arguments in Support: Supporters contend that the FGC and several Native American Tribes have expressed a desire to formalize the current ad-hoc Tribal Committee in statute and requested legislative assistance to do so. This bill would formalize a tribal committee from its membership which shall report to the FGC and make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the FGC.

Arguments in Opposition: None

Prior and Related Legislation:

AB 1792 (Wood), of 2016, proposed to require the FGC to meet with individual federally recognized Native American tribes in California, on request, to discuss elk management issues. The bill died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 497 (Chesbro), Chapter 233, Statutes of 2013, established the Wildlife Resources Committee.

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. The bill died in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.

AB 76 (Keeley), Chapter 483, Statutes of 1999, established the Marine Resources Committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Catherine Freeman / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0001709

Date of Hearing: July 19, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 161

Author:(McGuire) – As Introduced Ver:January 19, 2017

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to form a Tribal Committee comprised of at least one Commissioner from its current membership. Additionally, this bill:

1. Requires the Tribal Committee to report to the Commission on its activities and make recommendations on all tribal matters before the Commission.
2. Requires the Tribal Committee or its designee, to the extent practicable, to attend meetings of the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) staff and interested parties in which significant tribal management documents are developed.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Increased DFW costs of up to $150,000 annually (Fish and Game Preservation Fund, Environmental License Fund or GF) for one Senior Environmental Scientist position and the associated overhead expenses to staff the Commission and, as practicable, DFW.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, the Tribal Committee currently exists as a standing ad hoc committee but is not in statute. The number of Tribal agenda items and the level of complexity have significantly increased over time. Additionally, the workload with each agenda item varies as some require multiple conversations with various tribes to figure out a path forward. The tribes need formal access to the FGC process. This bill provides the formal venue for tribes to engage with the Commission.
2. Background. The Commission has regulatory authority over hunting and fishing in the State. Each year, it sets license fees and take restrictions, as well as other regulations, including in the area of conservation, that DFW implements and enforces. The Commission is also the quasi-judicial body who considers appeals for revocation or suspension of licenses and permits.

Currently the Commission has three committees: the Marine Resources Committee and Wildlife Resources Committee, which were created in statute, and the ad hoc Tribal Committee, which remains uncodified.

The Commission is funded through the Fish and Game Preservation Fund (FGPF), the General Fund, and, for the past two years, the Environmental License Plate Fund (ELPF). As such, funding for implementation of this bill could appropriately come from any of those sources. However, both the FGPF and ELPF are in structural deficit, making the General Fund the most likely funding source. Use of FGPF or ELPF would further exacerbate their respective structural deficits.

This bill codifies an existing committee. Workload associated with the committee has to-date been absorbed within existing resources. However, the Department indicates that the Commission will need a Senior Environmental Scientist position to act as a tribal liaison. Staff contends that the redirection of staff resources necessary in the absence of the liaison has resulted in significant delays in meeting other obligations. They further assert that the number of agenda items and communications with Tribes has dramatically increased, and is expected to continue to increase, making it impossible to continue to absorb related workload. Any staff increases would have to be approved through the Budget change proposal (BCP) process. Staff notes that the other two committees are staffed.

While this bill codifies an existing committee, codifying this committee will prevent the Commission from discontinuing or suspending the committee without Legislation. As such, this bill creates an annual cost.

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

Date of Hearing: June 27, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Eduardo Garcia, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 161

Author:(McGuire) – As Introduced Ver:January 19, 2017

SENATE VOTE: 40-0

SUBJECT: Fish and Game Commission: tribal committee

SUMMARY: Would require the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to form a tribal committee from its membership, consistent with the practices used in the formation of marine and wildlife resources committees. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the FGCto form a Tribal Committee from its membership, consistent with existing committees;
2. Requires the committee to report to the FGC from time to time on its activities and to make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the FGC.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the FGC as a state entity with a wide variety of responsibilities including formulation of general policies for the conduct of the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW); establishment of hunting and fishing seasons; regulation of protected areas; listing and de-listing of species under the California Endangered Species Act; prescribing terms and conditions for licenses and permits related to species take (including hunting and fishing); and other, related issues.
2. Requires the FGC to form a marine resources committee and a wildlife resources committee from its membership.
3. Requires each committee to consist of at least one commissioner and report to the FGC from time to time on its activities and recommendations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement:

Currently, there is no formal venue for tribes to engage with the Fish & Game Commission (FGC). The Tribal Committee currently exists as a standing ad hoc committee but is not in statute. The number of Tribal agenda items and the level of complexity have significantly increased over time. For example, tribes have recently requested for authorization for take in marine protected areas. This is a complex matter requiring legal and executive leadership from multiple organizations to figure out. Additionally, the workload with each agenda item varies as some require multiple conversations with various tribes to figure out a path forward. The tribes need formal access to the FGC process.

This bill would create statute allowing the FGC to formalize a Tribal Committee from its membership which shall report to the FGC and make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the FGC and to have the committee or its designee, to the extent practicable, attend meetings of the department staff, including meetings of the department staff with interested parties, in which significant tribal resource management documents are being developed.

Background: The California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) was the first wildlife conservation agency in the United States, predating the U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries. In 1870, the Board of Fish Commissioners, the forerunner of the modern day Fish and Game Commission, was established to provide for the restoration and preservation of fish in California waters. In 1909 the Board of Fish Commissioners' name was changed to the Fish and Game Commission, which reflected the growing importance of game conservation. The complex fish and game regulations and administration of today date from these years when the FGC was given more authority to undertake new responsibilities in the areas of conservation.

The FGC conducts its business at twelve meetings a year, alternating decision meetings with its Marine Resources Committee and Wildlife Resources Committee meetings. These meetings span from one to two days, and are strategically located throughout the State to encourage public outreach and participation. The annual meeting schedule must be announced sixty days prior to the first meeting of the calendar year, though it remains subject to change.

Currently the FGC has three committees: the Marine Resources Committee (MRC) and Wildlife Resources Committee (WRC), which were created in statute (Sections 105 and 106 of the Fish and Game Code), and the Tribal Committee. Each is chaired or co-chaired by no more than two Commissioners. These assignments are generally made annually by a majority vote of the FGC at the time of election of the President.

The goal of these committees is to allow presentations and discussions on regulatory proposals that allow greater time and detail than what is possible at full FGC meetings. The committee meetings are less formal in nature and provide for additional access to the Commission. The committees follow the requirements of Bagley-Keene and the committee chairs cannot take action independent of the full FGC. Instead, the chairs make recommendations to the full FGC at regularly scheduled meetings.

The FGC is allowed to form ad hoc committees to temporarily deal with short term issues that may arise. The Tribal Committee, while not created in statute, meets at a similar frequency to other FGC committees.

According to the Senate Floor Analysis, “The FGC currently has a policy of collaboration with California Native American Tribes to promote sustainable management of natural resources of mutual interest. Many tribes have also entered into treaties with the federal government that reserve the tribes’ hunting and fishing rights for salmon. Therefore, the FGC and tribal groups may have concurrent or overlapping jurisdictions related to sport fish and game wildlife. This scenario presents opportunities for consultation and potential for policy collaboration between Native American Tribes and the FGC. In 2011, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-10-11, which stated, in part, 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 specific nature of the collaborations can range from informal information sharing, to a memorandum of understanding, to co-management with specific responsibilities and authorities.”

Arguments in Support: Supporters contend that the FGC and several Native American Tribes have expressed a desire to formalize the current ad-hoc Tribal Committee in statute and requested legislative assistance to do so. This bill would formalize a tribal committee from its membership which shall report to the FGC and make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the FGC.

Arguments in Opposition: None

Prior and Related Legislation:

AB 1792 (Wood), 2016, proposed to require the FGC to meet with individual federally recognized Native American tribes in California, on request, to discuss elk management issues. The bill died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 497 (Chesbro), Chapter 233, Statutes of 2013, established the Wildlife Resources Committee.

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

AB 76 (Keeley), Chapter 483, Statutes of 1999, established the Marine Resources Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria

California Sportfishing League

California Sportman’s Lobby

Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria

Coastside Fishing Club

Dry Creek Rancheria, Band of Pomo Indians

Fish and Game Commission

Karuk Tribe

Outdoor Sportsmen’s Coalition of California

Resighini Rancheria

Safari Club International

Safari Club International Foundation

Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, Inc.

Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians

Yurok Tribe

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Catherine Freeman / W., P., & W. /

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 161

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-0, 3/14/17

AYES: Hertzberg, Stone, Allen, Atkins, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Stern, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/25/17

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires the California Fish and Game Commission to form a tribal committee from its membership, consistent with the practices used in the formation of marine and wildlife resources committees. This committee will provide recommendations related to tribal matters under consideration.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to form a marine resources committee and a wildlife resources committee from its membership.
2. Requires each committee to consist of at least one commissioner and report to the Commission from time to time on its activities and recommendations.

This bill requires the Commission to form a Tribal Committee from its membership, consistent with existing committees, and requires the committee to report to the Commission from time to time on its activities and to make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the Commission.

Background

The Commission was the first wildlife conservation agency in the United States and has been in existence since 1870. In 1945, a California constitutional amendment delegated to the Commission the power to regulate the taking or possession of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles. This includes the regulatory power to determine the limits on the number of animals taken and restrictions on methods of capture for game animals and sport fish. The Commission is made up of five appointed commissioners and exists within the California Natural Resources Agency.

The Commission holds multiple open public meetings each year to receive and consider input from individuals and groups on new or amendments to regulations. These meetings occur in various parts of California and enable the public to have input prior to the adoption of new or changed hunting or fishing regulations.

Currently, the Commission has three active committees. Previous legislation established the Marine Resources Committee (AB 76 Keeley, Chapter 483, Statutes of 1999) and Wildlife Resources Committee (AB 497 Chesbro, Chapter 233, Statutes of 2013). In addition, the Tribal Committee meets at a similar frequency to other Commission committees, which amounts to about three meetings a year, although the Tribal Committee is not created in statute.

Comments

The Commission currently has a policy of collaboration with California Native American Tribes to promote sustainable management of natural resources of mutual interest. Many tribes have also entered into treaties with the federal government that reserve the tribes’ hunting and fishing rights for salmon. Therefore, the Commission and tribal groups may have concurrent or overlapping jurisdictions related to sport fish and game wildlife. This scenario presents opportunities for consultation and potential for policy collaboration between Native American Tribes and the Commission.

In 2011, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-10-11, which stated, in part, 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 specific nature of the collaborations can range from informal information sharing, to a memorandum of understanding, to co-management with specific responsibilities and authorities.

Topics discussed at recent Tribal Committee meetings included both inland and marine issues. For example, in June 2016, the Tribal Committee meeting agenda included a review of draft text related to traditional ecological knowledge for the proposed final master plan for marine protected areas (MPAs). In February 2017, the agenda included the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians request for tribal take exemptions in Santa Barbara MPAs. Statewide elk management plans and tribal priorities related to climate change policies have also been recent topics.

Materials supplied by the author indicate that the number of agenda items before the Tribal Committee and correspondence related to those items has increased in recent years. If the increased complexity and number of policy items are sustained, the staff of the Commission (10 staff positions) may not be able to respond or consult in a timely manner. For example, the requested authorization for take in MPAs (throughout the state) and consultations regarding co-management of other species are policy items that likely require repeated discussion and coordination.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1792 (Wood, 2016) proposed to require the Commission to meet with individual federally recognized Native American tribes in California, on request, to discuss elk management issues. The bill died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

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

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, total costs are estimated to be up to $150,000 annually (General Fund) to the Department of Fish and Wildlife for one staff position and associated overhead expenses. The other two active committees (Marine and Wildlife Resources) are staffed, and any staff increases would have to be approved through the Budget Change Proposal process.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/25/17)

Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria

California Fish and Game Commission

California Sportsmen’s Lobby

Che-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria

Coastside Fishing Club

Dry Creek Rancheria

Karuk Tribe

Outdoor Sportsmen’s Coalition of California

Resighini Rancheria

Safari Club International California Coalition

Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association

Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation

Yurok Tribe

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/17)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to materials provided by the author, “the number of Tribal agenda items and the level of complexity have significantly increased over time. Additionally, the workload with each agenda item varies, as some require multiple conversations with various tribes. This bill would create statute allowing the [Commission] to formalize a Tribal Committee from its membership which shall report to the [Commission] and make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the [Commission] and to have the committee or its designee, to the extent practicable, attend meetings of the department staff, including meetings of the department staff with interested parties, in which significant tribal resource management documents are being developed.”

Prepared by:

5/27/17 18:43:50

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 161 (McGuire) - Fish and Game Commission: tribal committee

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

Bill Summary:

SB 161 requires the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to form a tribal committee comprised of at least one commissioner from its current membership. The bill also requires the committee to report to the Commission on its activities and make recommendations on all tribal matters before the Commission.

Fiscal Impact:

Up to $150,000 annually (General Fund) to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) for one Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) position and associated overhead expenses. (See staff notes)

Background:

The Commission has regulatory authority over hunting and fishing in the State. Each year, it sets license fees and take restrictions, as well as other regulations that the Department implements and enforces. The Commission is also the quasi-judicial body that considers appeals for revocation or suspension of licenses and permits.

The Commission conducts its business at twelve meetings per year held throughout the State. It currently has three committees: the Marine Resources Committee, the Wildlife Resources Committee, and the Tribal Committee. The Marine and Wildlife Resources Committees were created in statute (Sections 105 and 106 of the Fish and Game Code); however, the Tribal Committee remains uncodified. These committees allow for more in-depth discussions on regulatory proposals and generate policy recommendations for the full Commission.

The Commission has 10 staff, and relies on the Department’s biological data and expertise to inform its decision-making process. The Commission currently collaborates with California Native American Tribes (Tribes) to promote sustainable management of natural resources of mutual interest. Many Tribes have also entered into treaties with the federal government that reserve the Tribes’ hunting and fishing rights for salmon. In these cases, the Commission and Tribes may have concurrent or overlapping jurisdictions related to sport fish and game.

In 2011, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-10-11 requiring every state agency and Department to encourage consultation with Tribes and to permit tribal governments to provide meaningful input into the development of policies that may affect tribal communities. As a result, the Department received position authority and funding for a tribal liaison.

Proposed Law:

This bill requires:

• The Commission to form a tribal committee from its membership consisting of at least one commissioner.
• The committee to report to the Commission from time to time on its activities and make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the Commission.
• The committee or its designee, to the extent practicable, to attend meetings with Department staff and meetings with interested parties, in which significant tribal management documents are being developed.

Related Legislation:

AB 1792 (Wood, 2016) would have required the Department, 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. This bill died in Senate Appropriations.

AB 52 (Gatto, Chapter Statutes of 2014) provided a process for Tribes to engage in the California Environmental Quality Act review process to avoid significant effects on tribal cultural resources.

Staff Comments:

The Commission is funded through the Fish and Game Preservation Fund (FGPF), the General Fund, and, for the past two years, the Environmental License Plate Fund (ELPF). As such, funding for implementation of this bill could appropriately come from any of those sources. However, both the FGPF and ELPF are in structural deficit, making the General Fund the most likely funding source. Use of FGPF or ELPF would further exacerbate their respective structure deficits.

This bill codifies an existing committee. Workload associated with the committee has to-date been absorbed within existing resources. However, the Department indicates that the Commission will need a Senior Environmental Scientist position to act as a tribal liaison. Staff contends that the redirection of staff resources necessary in the absence of the liaison has resulted in significant delays in meeting other obligations. They further assert that the number of agenda items and communications with Tribes has dramatically increased, and is expected to continue to increase, making it impossible to continue to absorb related workload. Any staff increases would have to be approved through the Budget Change Proposal process. Staff notes that the other two committees are staffed.

While this bill codifies an existing committee, codifying this committee will prevent the Commission from discontinuing or suspending the committee without Legislation. As such, this bill creates an annual cost.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Robert Hertzberg, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 161 Hearing Date: March 14, 2017

Subject: Fish and Game Commission: tribal committee

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

1. The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) was the first wildlife conservation agency in the United States and has been in existence since 1870. In 1945, a California constitutional amendment delegated to the Commission the power to regulate the taking or possession of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles. This includes the regulatory power to determine the limits on the number of animals taken and restrictions on methods of capture for game animals and sport fish. The Commission is made up of five appointed commissioners and exists within the California Natural Resources Agency.

2. The Commission holds multiple open public meetings each year to receive and consider input from individuals and groups on new or amendments to regulations. These meetings occur in various parts of California and enable the public to have input prior to the adoption of new or changed hunting or fishing regulations.

3. Currently, the Commission has three committees. Previous legislation established the Marine Resources Committee (AB 76 Keeley, 1999; Chapter 483, Stats. 1999) and Wildlife Resources Committee (AB 497 Chesbro, 2013; Chapter 233, Stats. 2013). In addition, the Tribal Committee meets at a similar frequency to other Commission committees, which amounts to about three meetings a year, although the Tribal Committee is not created in statute.

PROPOSED LAW

SB 161 would require the Commission to form a Tribal Committee from its membership consisting of at least one commissioner and would require the committee to report to the Commission from time to time on its activities and to make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the Commission. This proposed committee’s composition is identical to the composition of the Marine Resources committee and the Wildlife Resources Committee.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

According to materials provided by the author, “the number of Tribal agenda items and the level of complexity have significantly increased over time. Additionally, the workload with each agenda item varies, as some require multiple conversations with various tribes. This bill would create statute allowing the [Commission] to formalize a Tribal Committee from its membership which shall report to the [Commission] and make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the [Commission] and to have the committee or its designee, to the extent practicable, attend meetings of the department staff, including meetings of the department staff with interested parties, in which significant tribal resource management documents are being developed.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

None received

COMMENTS

1. The Commission currently has a policy of collaboration with California Native American Tribes to promote sustainable management of natural resources of mutual interest. Many tribes have also entered into treaties with the federal government that reserve the tribes’ hunting and fishing rights for salmon. Therefore, the Commission and tribal groups may have concurrent or overlapping jurisdictions related to sport fish and game wildlife. This scenario presents opportunities for consultation and potential for policy collaboration between Native American Tribes and the Commission.
2. In 2011, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-10-11, which stated, in part, 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 specific nature of the collaborations can range from informal information sharing, to a memorandum of understanding, to co-management with specific responsibilities and authorities.

3. Topics discussed at recent Tribal Committee meetings included both inland and marine issues. For example, in June 2016, the Tribal Committee meeting agenda included a review of draft text related to traditional ecological knowledge for the proposed final master plan for marine protected areas (MPAs). In February 2017, the agenda included the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians request for tribal take exemptions in Santa Barbara MPAs. Statewide elk management plans and tribal priorities related to climate change policies have also been recent topics.

4. In the last several years, legislation has been proposed, but not passed, related to the roles of tribal groups and the Commission. AB 1792 (Wood) of 2016 proposed to require the Commission to meet with individual federally recognized Native American tribes in California, on request, to discuss elk management issues. In addition, SB 685 (Evans) of 2011 proposed to authorize Native American tribes to submit proposals for co-management of marine species within MPAs designated under the Marine Life Protection Act. This bill died in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.

5. Materials supplied by the author indicate that the number of agenda items before the Tribal Committee and correspondence related to those items has increased in recent years. If the increased complexity and number of policy items are sustained, the staff of the Commission (10 staff positions) may not be able to respond or consult in a timely manner. For example, the requested authorization for take in MPAs (throughout the state) and consultations regarding co-management of other species are policy items that likely require repeated discussion and coordination.

SUPPORT

Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria

California Fish and Game Commission

Che-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria

Coastside Fishing Club

Dry Creek Rancheria

Resighini Rancheria

Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association

Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation

Yurok Tribe

OPPOSITION

None Received

-- END --