Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to import into the state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or a part or product thereof, of a polar bear, leopard, ocelot, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, sable antelope, wolf, zebra, whale, cobra, python, sea turtle, colobus monkey, kangaroo, vicuna, sea otter, free-roaming feral horse, dolphin or porpoise, Spanish lynx, or elephant. Existing law, commencing January 1, 2020, makes it a misdemeanor to import into the state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or a part or product thereof, of a crocodile or alligator. Existing law makes a violation of this prohibition punishable by a fine of not less than $1,000, not to exceed $5,000, or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

This bill, commencing January 1, 2022, would make it a misdemeanor to import into the state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body or other part or product of an iguana, skink, caiman, hippopotamus, or a Teju, Ring, or Nile lizard. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1260

Author: Maienschein (D)

Amended: 4/11/19 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 7-2, 6/25/19

AYES: Stern, Allen, Caballero, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning

NOES: Jones, Borgeas

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 8/30/19

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Durazo, Hill, Wieckowski

NOES: Jones

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-12, 5/23/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Endangered wildlife

SOURCE: Social Compassion in Legislation

DIGEST:

This bill adds more types of animals – iguana, skink, caiman, hippopotamus, and three types of lizards – to the import and trade prohibition of dead animals and dead animal parts.

ANALYSIS: Existing federal law establishes the Endangered Species Act (Title 16, United States Code, §§1531 et seq.) to protect animals at risk. Under the Endangered Species Act, the US Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with enforcing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) which regulates the trade internationally of many species. The United States is a party to CITES.

Existing state law:

1. Establishes the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (department) and the Fish and Game Commission (commission) in the California Natural Resources Agency.
   1. The department’s mission is “to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public.”
   2. In general, the commission sets regulations that the department implements and enforces. The department also provides data and expertise to inform the commission’s decision-making process.
2. Makes it a misdemeanor to import into the state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or a part or product thereof, of a polar bear, leopard, ocelot, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, sable antelope, wolf, zebra, whale, cobra, python, sea turtle, colobus monkey, kangaroo, vicuna, sea other, free-roaming feral house, dolphin or porpoise, Spanish lynx, or elephant. (Penal Code §653o)
3. Provides that these prohibitions will extend to crocodile and alligator as of January 1, 2020, and thereafter. (Penal Code §653o)
4. Makes a violation of this prohibition punishable by a fine of between $1,000 to $5,000, or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.
5. Makes it unlawful, with certain limited exceptions, to purchase, sell, offer for sale, possess with intent to sell, or import with intent to sell ivory, including the tooth or tusk of a hippopotamus. (FGC §2022)

This bill adds more types of animals to the import and trade prohibition of dead animals and dead animal parts. Specifically, this bill:

1. Extends the prohibition on importation into the state for commercial purposes, and on possession with the intent to sell or to sell within the state, the dead body, or a part or product thereof, to additional species.
   1. These additional species are the iguana, skink, caiman, hippopotamus, Teju lizard, Ring lizard and Nile lizard.
2. Creates a new crime, and impose a state-mandated local program.
   1. No reimbursement is required, as specified.

Background

International framework for trafficking in endangered species. There is an international framework developed to identify where there are risks to flora and fauna. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) established its “Red List” of threatened species in 1964. According to the IUCN the list “has evolved to become the world’s most comprehensive information source on the global conservation status of animal, fungi, and plant species.” The intent of the Red List is to guide research and direct actions needed to protect species. The Red List informs CITES, the international treaty governing trade in certain endangered species. Animals listed in CITES’ Appendices are subject to varying levels of trade restriction. CITES Appendix I species are the most endangered species and international trade in those species is prohibited. Appendix II species are “not now threatened with extinction, but may become so if trade is not controlled.” Appendix II species include “look-alike” species for those species that appear similar when traded. Data provided by the sponsor of this bill suggest that the trade in the skin of certain reptiles, in particular, is poised to increase.

Existing state law explicitly protects species that are not endangered. Not all of the animals listed in Penal Code §653o are at risk, although many are. For example, the vicuna (vicugna vicugna) is one of two South American wild camelids. According to the Red List, its population is apparently increasing, and its conservation status is of “least concern.”

Animals added by the bill. Five types of animals are added to the existing Penal Code prohibition by this bill and include:

1. Iguana. There are about 329 different species of iguana, almost entirely in the reptilia class. The common green iguana (iguana iguana), according to the Red List, has an unknown population but is thought to be of “least concern.” There are many endangered or critically endangered species of iguana. Iguanas are the most traded live reptile. The Desert Iguana (dipsosaurus dorsalis) is native to the southern Californian deserts, and the commission has the authority to regulate its take.
2. Skink. There are about 1,500 species of lizards – almost all in the same family – collectively known as skinks. Some species of skink have stable populations and others do not. Many species are listed as threatened or endangered. The Gilbert’s skink (plestiodon gilberti) and the Western skink (plestiodon skiltonianus) are found in California, and their take is regulated by the commission. It is unclear how much of a trade exists in the skins or parts of skinks.
3. Caiman. There are approximately 10 species of caiman in class reptilia. They are found in two orders (mostly crocodylia). According to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife bill analysis, caiman are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and are in Appendix II of CITES because of their similarity to endangered crocodiles. Some species of caiman are stable and of “least concern” according to the Red List. The trade in their skin is regulated. Most caiman are apparently caught in the wild before being harvested for their skin. Caimans were one of the top five most illegally trafficked species in a recent study of the wildlife trade between Latin America and the United States by Defenders of Wildlife.
4. Hippopotamus. Hippopotamus includes four mammalian species of which two are extinct. The hippopotamus (hippopotamus amphibius) is “vulnerable” according to the Red List, and is listed as threatened under CITES (Appendix II). Commercial sale of ivory from hippopotamus teeth is prohibited within the state already, as noted above. While the focus has been on ivory with respect to hippos, the skin is also used to make leather. According to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee bill analysis, fewer than 2,000 hippopotamus skins or hunting trophies were exported annually over the last several years.
5. Teju lizards. Three species of what are commonly known as teju lizards are listed in Appendix II of CITES, and of “least concern” in the Red List. Species of teju lizards are also becoming invasive in Florida. These lizards are omnivorous and prey on ground nesting birds and crocodilian eggs. There appears to be a significant worldwide trade in teju leather skins on the order of hundreds of thousands of skins annually.
6. Ring and Nile lizards. These two lizards are both (large) monitor lizards of which there are about 75 species. Both lizards are listed as of “least concern” in the Red List, and both are listed in Appendix II of CITES. Some monitor species are listed as Appendix I in CITES too. It has not been unusual for on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands of the skins of the Ring and Nile lizards to be regularly exported worldwide annually according to CITES.

Comments

Proactive approach. As noted in the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee bill analysis and based at least in part on data provided by the bill sponsor, it is unclear that there is a brisk trade in the skins, leather produced from the skins or other parts of the animals added by this bill to the existing prohibition on trade within the state. It appears to some degree that this bill is an effort to curtail demand before it starts for some species. According to a recent study by Defenders of Wildlife of illegal trade between Latin American and the United States, however, two of the five most frequently seized animals in illegal shipments were caimans and iguanas. These caimans and iguanas were almost entirely sourced from the wild. In the same study, one of the top five trade routes was from Mexico to San Diego.

The skins or parts of many animals are used to produce products for human use. Although estimates are uncertain, the illegal trade in wildlife is thought to be a significant fraction of the legal trade. It is important to also recognize that trade being subject to CITES does not ensure that CITES’ provisions are being effectively enforced in all locations.

Potential enforcement challenges. There are two principal issues with respect to enforcement.

First, there are multiple methods animal skins or finished products can be imported into the state. It is also not known how difficult it is to distinguish between leather made from the skins of the reptile species included in this bill and other reptile or other species that are legal. It is unclear if there are one or more readily-available methods capable of providing accurate identification of the animal skin in the field.

Second, there are long-standing department funding concerns. Obtaining sufficient funding for all of the department’s mandates has been an ongoing concern for many years. The most recent concerted effort to address the department’s “overmandated/underfunded” budgetary issues started a few years ago following the acknowledgement of a roughly $20 million structural deficit in the non-dedicated Fish and Game Preservation Fund – the department’s largest single fund. In last year’s budget, the Legislature mandated that the department institute service-based budgeting in an effort to provide transparency to its budget processes. Through service-based budgeting, actual and “ideal” department enforcement efforts should be identified across various programs. The information necessary to address deficiencies should be developed. It may be that “ideal” enforcement of illegal trade in prohibited species will require additional resources. There is no associated fee with this enforcement activity to help offset its costs.

Look-alike species. As noted above, not every species included in the common animal names added to the prohibition on trafficking by this bill is threatened or endangered. Some may even have increasing populations. However, as CITES acknowledges by its own apparent listing practices, there is a reasonable argument to include look-alike species in trading restrictions when it is difficult to distinguish easily between products made from the different species. This should help with respect to enforcement. While all 1,500 known species of skink may not end up being trafficked as skins in the leather trade, those that are will be covered by the generic name. Implicit in the listing of look-alike species is that the gain from protecting biodiversity and the different species of animal outweighs other considerations.

Particular risks to reptiles. There is well-documented concern in the academic press about the potential overexploitation of reptiles in both legal and illegal trade. The potential for local extirpation followed by larger scale extinction is possible, particularly for species that already are at risk due to habitat loss, and other factors. Only about 8% of the roughly 10,700 recognized reptile species are listed in the CITES Appendices. Trade data for species included in a CITES Appendix is well-documented (at least the legal portion). However, information regarding the trade in non-CITES listed species may be sparse, and often not rigorously or consistently collected. Lack of information on this trade may ultimately end up being a threat to the trafficked species that are not recorded or tracked.

The ban proposed by this bill appears to seek to limit demand for the trade in the skin of certain types of animals to reduce the risks to existing populations. As noted above, it is not clear how strong or active the trade in the skins of many of these animals is.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 527 (Voepel, 2019) would have allowed the commercial importation and sale of parts and products from alligators and crocodiles. (The bill was held on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.)

AB 719 (B. Rubio, 2019) would have allowed the commercial importation and sale of parts and products from alligators and crocodiles. (The bill was held on the suspense file in the Senate Appropriations Committee)

SB 1487 (Stern, 2018) would have prohibited the possession of specified African species and any part, product, or the dead body or parts thereof, with limited exception. (The bill was vetoed by Governor Brown.)

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates it would cost $853,000 in 2019-20 and $750,000 ongoing (General Fund) to increase field level investigations and conduct forensics analyses.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/30/19)

Social Compassion in Legislation (source)

Animal Legal Defense Fund

Colorado Reptile Humane Society

Compassionate Bay

Paw PAC

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

The Humane Society of the United States

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/30/19)

Department of Finance

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “[t]housands of reptile, caiman, and other species of exotic animals are killed for their skins each year. These animals suffer greatly for the sake of fashion and vanity, even while alternatives exist. They experience a lifetime of stress related to intensive confinement, crowding, harsh and unnatural surroundings such as concrete, a lack of fresh water, irregular temperatures, and rampant disease. This bill would protect these animals from experiencing unnecessary and inhumane torture.”

Supporters, such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund, add that “[s]everal large retailers have already led the charge in banning these skins, including Chanel, Ann Taylor, H&M, Adidas, and Victoria’s Secret, to name a few.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Writing in opposition, the Department of Finance argues that this bill “results in ongoing General Fund costs not included in the 2019 Budget Act.” They further note that enforcement of the bill is performed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Wildlife Tracking Team and “[t]he Department indicates that the expansion proposed by this bill would add a considerable amount of enforcement-related workload and would require the services of a wildlife forensics specialist. The Department does not currently employ staff with this expertise.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-12, 5/23/19

AYES: Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Chu, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Bigelow, Brough, Choi, Dahle, Flora, Fong, Kiley, Mathis, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Voepel

NO VOTE RECORDED: Aguiar-Curry, Cooley, Eduardo Garcia, Gray, Mayes

Prepared by: Katharine Moore / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116

9/1/19 10:04:12

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 1260 (Maienschein) - Endangered wildlife

Bill Summary:

This bill would add more species to the import and trade prohibition of dead animals and dead animal parts.

Fiscal Impact:

The Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) estimates it would cost $853,000 in 2019-20 and $750,000 ongoing (General Fund) to increase field level investigations and conduct forensics analyses.

Background:

DFW’s Trafficking Team was formed following the enactment of AB 96 (Atkins) in 2015 to combat ivory and rhinoceros horn trafficking. Prior to that, the Department’s Law Enforcement Division had traditionally focused patrol operations on California’s native species, as opposed to exotic species from Africa that make up the bulk of the source of ivory. AB 96 authorized and ultimately funded the creation of the Wildlife Trafficking Team to focus effort on the non-native wildlife. The team consisted of a squad of four wildlife officers under the direction of a lieutenant, an attorney for the associated civil actions, an Associate Governmental Program Analyst to handle the administrative functions and wildlife forensics specialist. Once formed, wildlife officers began to immediately make cases and have seized well in excess of $3.5 million worth of ivory illegally possessed for sale. The team currently has around three dozen cases pending. Much of the work stems from internet trafficking investigations but has a patrol function of both uniformed and under cover capacity.

Proposed Law:

This bill would add more species to the import and trade prohibition of dead animals and dead animal parts. Specifically, this bill would:

• Extend the prohibition on importation into the state for commercial purposes, and on possession with the intent to sell or to sell within the state, the dead body, or a part or product thereof, to additional species.
  • These additional species are the iguana, skink, caiman, hippopotamus, Teju lizard, Ring lizard and Nile lizard.
• Create a new crime, and impose a state-mandated local program.
  • No reimbursement is required, as specified.

Related Legislation:

• AB 44 (Friedman, 2019) would prohibit the sale of new fur products in California in part over animal welfare concerns. (This bill is pending before the Natural Resources & Water Committee.)
• AB 527 (Voepel, 2019) would allow the commercial importation and sale of parts and products from alligators and crocodiles. (This bill was held on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.)
• SB 1487 (Stern, 2018) would have prohibited the possession of specified African species and any part, product, or the dead body or parts thereof, with limited exception. (This bill was vetoed by Governor Brown.)

Staff Comments:

According to DFW, this bill would add a considerable amount of workload to the Wildlife Trafficking Team and require additional wildlife officers to adhere to the bill’s mandates while avoiding needing to redirect wildlife officers from other priorities. It would be necessary to expand the team by at least three wildlife officers to patrol the Bay Area/northern California region and the Los Angeles southern California region and to combat internet trafficking of the species.

Once a product or material is seized because of an alleged violation, the Department must prove that the item is made of the contraband item. Synthetic leather products or products from common leathers stamped with the patterns of exotic animals require laboratory analysis to prove their source material. Consultation with wildlife forensics scientists at the California Wildlife Forensics Laboratory and the National U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reveal that tanned leather, from which much of the contraband items would be made, requires extensive testing to prove the source material. In some cases, it will be impossible to identify the genetic source due to degradation during processing. As such, the Department would need to use a wildlife forensics scientist trained in identification and differentiation of these species and equipment in order to positively identify the banned materials morphologically. DFW does not currently employ staff with this expertise.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Henry Stern, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB Hearing Date: June 25, 2019

Subject: Endangered wildlife

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

1. Existing federal law establishes the Endangered Species Act (Title 16, United State Code, §§1531 et seq.) to protect animals at risk.
2. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) regulates the trade internationally of many species. The United States is a party to CITES.
3. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) established its “Red List” of threatened species in 1964. According to the IUCN the list “has evolved to become the world’s most comprehensive information source on the global conservation status of animal, fungi, and plant species.” The intent of the Red List is to guide research and direct actions needed to protect species. The Red List informs CITES. Animals listed in CITES’ Appendices are subject to varying levels of trade restriction.
   1. Appendix I species are the most endangered species among CITES-listed animals and international trade in those species is prohibited.
   2. Appendix II species are “not now threatened with extinction, but may become so if trade is not controlled.” Appendix II species include “look-alike” species for those species that appear similar when traded.
4. Existing state law establishes the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (department) and the Fish and Game Commission (commission) in the California Natural Resources Agency.
   1. The department’s mission is “to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public.”
   2. In general, the commission sets regulations that the department implements and enforces. The department also provides data and expertise to inform the commission’s decision-making process.
5. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to import into the state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or a part or product thereof, of a polar bear, leopard, ocelot, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, sable antelope, wolf, zebra, whale, cobra, python, sea turtle, colobus monkey, kangaroo, vicuna, sea other, free-roaming feral house, dolphin or porpoise, Spanish lynx, or elephant. (Penal Code §653o)
6. Existing law provides that these prohibitions will extend to crocodile and alligator as of January 1, 2020 and thereafter. (Penal Code §653o)
7. Existing law makes a violation of this prohibition punishable by a fine of between $1,000 to $5,000, or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.
8. Not all of the animals listed in Penal Code §653o are at risk, although many are. The vicuna (vicugna vicugna), for example, is one of two South American wild camelids. According to the Red List, its population is apparently increasing, and its conservation status is of “least concern.” There are several species of zebra and while the Plains Zebra (equus quagga) has a decreasing population, it is listed as not threatened on the Red List. However, another zebra, Grevy’s Zebra (equus grevyi), is endangered but is thought to have a stable population.
9. Existing law requires the commission to establish rules and regulations for the commercial take, sale, transport, export, or import of native reptiles. (Fish and Game Code (FGC) §5061)
10. Existing law also makes it unlawful, with certain limited exceptions, to purchase, sell, offer for sale, possess with intent to sell, or import with intent to sell ivory, including the tooth or tusk of a hippopotamus. (FGC §2022)
11. Data provided by the sponsor of this bill suggest that trade in the skin of certain reptiles, in particular, is poised to increase.

PROPOSED LAW

This bill would add more species to the import and trade prohibition of dead animals and dead animal parts. Specifically, this bill would:

1. Extend the prohibition on importation into the state for commercial purposes, and on possession with the intent to sell or to sell within the state, the dead body, or a part or product thereof, to additional species.
   1. These additional species are the iguana, skink, caiman, hippopotamus, Teju lizard, Ring lizard and Nile lizard.
2. Create a new crime, and impose a state-mandated local program.
   1. No reimbursement is required, as specified.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

According to the author, “[t]housands of reptile, caiman, and other species of exotic animals are killed for their skins each year. These animals suffer greatly for the sake of fashion and vanity, even while alternatives exist. They experience a lifetime of stress related to intensive confinement, crowding, harsh and unnatural surroundings such as concrete, a lack of fresh water, irregular temperatures, and rampant disease. This bill would protect these animals from experiencing unnecessary and inhumane torture.”

Supporters, such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund, add that “[s]everal large retailers have already led the charge in banning these skins, including Chanel, Ann Taylor, H&M, Adidas, and Victoria’s Secret, to name a few.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

None received

COMMENTS

Proactive approach. As noted in the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife bill analysis and based at least in part on data provided by the bill sponsor, it is unclear that there is a brisk trade in the skins, leather produced from the skins or other parts of the animals added by this bill to the existing prohibition on trade within the state. It appears to some degree that this bill is an effort to curtail demand before it starts for some species. According to a recent study by Defenders of Wildlife of illegal trade between Latin American and the United States, however, two of the five most frequently seized animals in illegal shipments were caimans and iguanas. These caimans and iguanas were almost entirely sourced from the wild. In the same study, one of the top five trade routes was from Mexico to San Diego.

The skins or parts of many animals are used to produce products for human use. Although estimates are uncertain, the illegal trade in wildlife is thought to be a significant fraction of the legal trade. Animals of relevant interest are as follows:

• 1. Iguana. There are about 329 different species of iguana, almost entirely in the reptilia class. The common green iguana (iguana iguana), according to the Red List, has an unknown population but is thought to be of “least concern.” There are many endangered or critically endangered species of iguana. The common green iguana is popular as a pet, as well as for meat and skin. Pet iguanas released to the wild in Puerto Rico and Florida have become invasive and present a threat to native ecosystems, among other things. Puerto Rico has a bounty program and legalized hunting and exports of meat and skin. Iguanas are the most traded live reptile. The Desert Iguana (dipsosaurus dorsalis) is native to the southern Californian deserts, and the commission has the authority to regulate its take.
  2. Skink. There are about 1,500 species of lizards – almost all in the same family – collectively known as skinks. Some species of skink have stable populations and others do not. Many species are listed as threatened or endangered. The Gilbert’s skink (plestiodon gilberti) and the Western skink (plestiodon skiltonianus) are found in California, and their take is regulated by the commission. It is unclear how much of a trade exists in the skins or parts of skinks.
  3. Caiman. There are approximately 10 species of caiman in class reptilia. They are found in two orders (mostly crocodylia). According to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife bill analysis, caiman are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and are in Appendix II of CITES because of their similarity to endangered crocodiles. Some species of caiman are stable and of “least concern” according to the Red List. The trade in their skin is regulated. Most caiman are apparently caught in the wild before being harvested for their skin. Caimans were one of the top five most illegally trafficked species in a recent study of the wildlife trade between Latin America and the United States by Defenders of Wildlife.
  4. Hippopotamus. Hippopotamus includes 4 mammalian species of which two are extinct. The hippopotamus (hippopotamus amphibius) is “vulnerable” according to the Red List, and is listed as threatened under CITES (Appendix II). Commercial sale of ivory from hippopotamus teeth is prohibited within the state already, as noted above. While the focus has been on ivory with respect to hippos, the skin is also used to make leather. According to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife bill analysis, fewer than 2,000 hippopotamus skins or hunting trophies were exported annually over the last several years.
  5. Teju lizards. Three species of what are commonly known as teju lizards are listed in Appendix II of CITES, and of “least concern” in the Red List. Species of teju lizards are also becoming invasive in Florida. These lizards are omnivorous and prey on ground nesting birds and crocodilian eggs. There appears to be a significant worldwide trade in teju leather skins on the order of hundreds of thousands of skins annually.
  6. Ring and Nile lizards. These two lizards are both (large) monitor lizards of which there are about 75 species. Both species are listed as of “least concern” in the Red List, and both are listed in Appendix II of CITES. Some monitor species are listed as Appendix I in CITES too. It has not been unusual for on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands of the skins of the Ring and Nile lizards to be regularly exported worldwide annually according to CITES.

Enforcement challenges. There are two principal issues with respect to enforcement.

First, there are multiple methods animal skins or finished products can be imported into the state. It is also not known how difficult it is to distinguish between leather made from the skins of the reptile species included in this bill and other reptile or other species that are legal. It is unclear if there are one or more readily-available methods capable of providing accurate identification of the animal skin in the field.

Second, there are long-standing department funding concerns. Obtaining sufficient funding for all of the department’s mandates has been an ongoing concern for many years (frankly, decades). The most recent concerted effort to address the department’s “overmandated/underfunded” budgetary issues started a few years ago following the acknowledgement of a roughly $20 million structural deficit in the non-dedicated Fish and Game Preservation Fund – the department’s largest single fund. In last year’s budget, the Legislature mandated that the department institute service-based budgeting in an effort to provide transparency to its budget processes. Through service-based budgeting, actual and “ideal” department enforcement efforts should be identified across various programs. The information necessary to address deficiencies should be developed. It may be that “ideal” enforcement of illegal trade in prohibited species will require additional resources. There is no associated fee with this enforcement activity to help offset its costs.

Look-alike species. As noted above, not every species included in the common animal names added to the prohibition on trafficking by this bill is threatened or endangered. Some may even have increasing populations. However, as CITES acknowledges by its own apparent listing practices, there is a reasonable argument to include look-alike species in trading restrictions when it is difficult to distinguish easily between products made from the different species. This should help with respect to enforcement. While all 1,500 known species of skink may not end up being trafficked as skins in the leather trade, those that are will be covered by the generic name. Implicit in the listing of look-alike species is that the gain from protecting biodiversity and the different species of animal outweighs other considerations.

Particular risks to reptiles. There is well-documented concern in the academic press about the potential overexploitation of reptiles in both legal and illegal trade. The potential for local extirpation followed by larger scale extinction is possible, particularly for species that already are at risk due to habitat loss, and other factors. Only about 8% of the roughly 10,700 recognized reptile species are listed in the CITES Appendices. Trade data for species included in a CITES Appendix is well-documented (at least the legal portion). However, information regarding the trade in non-CITES listed species may be sparse, and often not rigorously or consistently collected. Lack of information on this trade may ultimately end up being a threat to the trafficked species that are not recorded or tracked.^[1]

The ban proposed by this bill appears to seek to limit demand for the trade in certain species’ skin to reduce the risks to existing populations. As noted above, it is not clear how strong or active the trade in the skins of many of these species is.

Is the range of fines assessed for violations sufficient? Some animal trafficking sections in the Fish and Game Code provide for larger base bails than those provided for here. Existing law authorizes additional penalties and surcharges to be added to the base bail for criminal offenses to help fund state court construction, and county bond indebtedness for court facilities, among other things. Thus the total bail for a violation can readily exceed the base bail. According to the 2019 edition of Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule (Schedule) published by the Judicial Council of California, a “base bail” of $100 can result in a “total bail” of up to $480 in some instances for violations of the Fish and Game Code. The Judicial Council publishes the Schedule to promote uniformity in the handling of certain violations of law related to traffic, boating, forestry, fish and game, public utilities, parks and recreation and business licensing. Trial court judges must give consideration to the Schedule when annually establishing countywide bail and penalty schedules. Bail and penalty schedules may vary by county, and judges retain discretion over the amount assessed in each individual case.

With respect to illegal trafficking in animal parts in the Fish and Game Code, a violation of FGC §12013.5 is a misdemeanor with a base bail of up to $10,000 for each bear part illegally trafficked. This base bail yields a total penalty of $41,070 per violation. The illegal take of abalone (a violation of FGC §5521.5) is also a misdemeanor with a base fine of up to $15,000 base fine which corresponds to a total bail of $61,570. It is a fair point that judges have discretion and all of the applicable assessments for violations of the Fish and Game Code do not appear to apply to Penal Code violations. That written, the $1,000 - $5,000 range in statute may well correspond to a total bail range of about $4,000 - $20,000. While the trade in illegal skins may be lucrative, the total penalty may also be steep, depending upon how the incident is charged.

Recent related legislation

AB 44 (Friedman, 2019) would prohibit the sale of new fur products in California in part over animal welfare concerns. (This bill is pending before this Committee.)

AB 527 (Voepel, 2019) would allow the commercial importation and sale of parts and products from alligators and crocodiles. (This bill was held on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.)

SB 1487 (Stern, 2018) would have prohibited the possession of specified African species and any part, product, or the dead body or parts thereof, with limited exception. (This bill was vetoed by Governor Brown.)

SUPPORT

Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor)

Animal Legal Defense Fund

Colorado Reptile Humane Society

Compassionate Bay

Paw PAC

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

Approximately 280 individuals

OPPOSITION

None Received

-- END --

1. The preceding paragraph is based upon Janssen, J and CR Shepherd (2018). Challenges in documenting trade in non CITES-listed species: A case study on crocodile skinks (Tribolonotus spp.). Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity. V11, 476 – 481, and references therein.

   ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1260

Author:(Maienschein)

As Amended Ver:April 11, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

This bill, beginning January 1, 2022, prohibits importing and the sale of the dead body or body part or product of an iguana, skink, caiman, hippopotamus, or a Teju, Ring or Nile lizard.

Major Provisions

This bill provides that it is unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof the animals specified. It adds the specified animals to an existing prohibition that is punishable as a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000, or six months imprisonment, or both.

COMMENTS:

The animals listed in this bill cover a wide range of species. Many of the species included are listed as vulnerable or endangered under the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List, which assesses the conservation status of species at a global level, while many are also listed as least concern meaning they are at low risk of extinction. Many of the species included are listed and regulated internationally by the Convention for the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) and federally by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Others are further regulated under California state law or by California’s Fish and Game Commission and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). Many of the species are commercially harvested and killed for their skin and meat, and such operations occur under various levels of regulation and enforcement around the world.

Iguanas and Skinks. Iguanas are lizards native to Central and South America. There are over 1,500 species of skinks found throughout the world including California, several of which are listed as endangered or threated. CITES reports show only small scale trade of Iguana meat and skin and nearly no skink skin trade. Trade of these species is dominated by the sale of live animals for pets.

Caiman. Caiman are several species of reptile closely related to alligators and crocodiles. Caiman are listed as threatened under the ESA and Appendix II of CITES for their similarity to endangered crocodiles so the trade in their skin is highly regulated, but the trade in leather products made from their skin is not regulated. Between 2012 and 2016, an average of 760,000 caiman skins were traded annually. While most caiman are caught in the wild, Colombia does have a significant number of exports sourced from farm-raised caiman.

Hippopotamus. The hippopotamus is a large, mostly herbivorous, semiaquatic mammal endemic to sub-Saharan Africa. The species is listed as threatened under CITES and the commercial sale of hippopotamus ivory from their teeth is prohibited within the state of California with a few exceptions for scientific, educational, or antique sales.

Teju, Ring, and Nile Lizards. These three types of large lizards, which can grow up to seven feet long and weigh 40 pounds, are native to South America, Asia, and Africa respectively. Between 1996 and 2010 over 15 million skins were exported globally. Their trade is regulated under CITES as they are listed under Appendix II, meaning trade is regulated but not banned, and the commercially traded species are listed as least concern by the IUCN Red List.

According to the Author:

Thousands of lizards, stingrays, sharks, and other species of exotic animals are killed for their skins each year. These animals suffer greatly for the sake of fashion and vanity, even while alternatives exist. They experience a lifetime of stress related to intensive confinement, crowding, harsh and unnatural surroundings such as concrete, a lack of fresh water, irregular temperatures, and rampant disease. This bill would protect these animals from experiencing unnecessary and inhumane torture.

Arguments in Support:

Supporters state that thousands of caiman, various lizards and other species of exotic animals are killed for their skins each year. They argue that these animals are treated inhumanely and slaughtered in brutal and painful manners. Supporters contend that some skins and products are mislabeled as coming from captive-bred animals when they are actually caught in the wild and traded illegally. Supporters also argue there are many alternative materials that look and feel like materials made from exotic skins and many larger retailers are already switching to alternative materials.

Arguments in Opposition:

Opposition arguments were related to the previous version of the bill that included sharks and stingrays in the prohibition.

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill would increase annual DFW costs by approximately $400,000 for two wardens and their associated weapons, vehicles, and equipment.

VOTES:

ASM WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE: 11-3-0

YES: Gallagher, Chu, Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Robert Rivas, Gloria, Kalra, Luz Rivas, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Wood

NO: Bigelow, Choi, Dahle

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-4-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Diep, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Brough, Fong, Obernolte

UPDATED:

VERSION: April 11, 2019

CONSULTANT: Jared Ferguson / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0000510

Date of Hearing: May 1, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1260

Author:(Maienschein) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2019

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

SUMMARY:

This bill, beginning January 1, 2022, prohibits importing the dead body or body part or product of an iguana, skink, caiman, hippopotamus, or a Teju, Ring or Nile lizard.

Specifically, this bill provides it is unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state the dead body or any part or product of the specified species.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Increased annual Department of Fish and Wildlife costs of approximately $400,000 for two wardens and their associated weapons, vehicles and equipment.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Thousands of lizards, stingrays, sharks, and other species of exotic animals are killed for their skins each year. These animals suffer greatly for the sake of fashion and vanity, even while alternatives exist. They experience a lifetime of stress related to intensive confinement, crowding, harsh and unnatural surroundings such as concrete, a lack of fresh water, irregular temperatures, and rampant disease. This bill would protect these animals from experiencing unnecessary and inhumane torture.

1. Support and Opposition. Supporters state that thousands of caiman, various lizards and other species of exotic animals are killed for their skins each year. They argue that these animals are treated inhumanely and slaughtered in brutal and painful manners. Supporters also contend that some skins and products are mislabeled as coming from captive-bred animals when they are actually caught in the wild and traded illegally. Supporters also argue there are many alternative materials that look and feel like materials made from exotic skins and many larger retailers are already switching to alternative materials. Opposition arguments were related to the previous version of the bill that included sharks and stingrays in the prohibition.
2. Prior and Related Legislation. SB 1487 (Stern), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, would have prohibited the possession of some African species except for educational or scientific purposes.

SB 1487 was vetoed by the governor who stated, “SB 1487 imposes a state civil penalty for activities expressly authorized by the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Even though I share the sentiments of the author, this bill, if enacted, would be unenforceable.”

AB 527 (Voepel) allows the commercial importation and sale of parts and products from non-endangered alligators and crocodiles. The bill is currently pending in this committee.

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

Date of Hearing: April 9, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Eduardo Garcia, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1260 (

Author:Maienschein) – As Introduced Ver:February 21, 2019

SUBJECT: Endangered wildlife

SUMMARY: Prohibits the importation, for commercial purposes or sale of parts and products, of multiple native and exotic animals. Specifically, this bill:

Starting January 1, 2022, makes it unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of an iguana, skink, caiman, shark, stingray, hippopotamus, or a Teju, Ring, or Nile lizard.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Makes it unlawful to import into the state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of specified wild animal species that are native and not native to California. Violation of this prohibition is punishable as a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000, or six months imprisonment, or both. [Penal Code (PEN) §653o]
2. Makes it unlawful, commencing January 1, 2020, to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of a crocodile or alligator. (PEN §653o)
3. Requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to set and enforce recreational and commercial fishing regulations.
4. Requires the Commission to establish rules and regulations for the commercial take, sale, transport, export, or import of native reptiles. (FGC §5061)
5. Makes it unlawful to take any white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) for commercial purpose except under scientific or educational permits or under incidental takes by commercial fishing operations. [Fish and Game Code (FGC) §8599]
6. Prohibits possession, sale, offer for sale, trade, or distribution of a shark fin by any person with the follow exceptions:
   1. Any person who holds a scientific or educational permit issued by the DFW may possess a shark fin or fins consistent with that license; and,
   2. Any person who holds a license or permit issued by the DFW to take or land sharks for recreational or commercial purposes may possess, including for consumption or taxidermy, a shark fin or fins. (FGC §2021 and §2021.5)
7. Makes it unlawful, with certain limited exceptions, to purchase, sell, offer for sale, possess with intent to sell, or import with intent to sell ivory, including the tooth or tusk of a hippopotamus. (FGC §2022)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown, this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: This bill makes it unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of an iguana, skink, caiman, shark, stingray, hippopotamus, or a Teju, Ring, or Nile lizard.

Author’s Statement:

Thousands of lizards, stingrays, sharks, and other species of exotic animals are killed for their skins each year. These animals suffer greatly for the sake of fashion and vanity, even while alternatives exist. They experience a lifetime of stress related to intensive confinement, crowding, harsh and unnatural surroundings such as concrete, a lack of fresh water, irregular temperatures, and rampant disease. This bill would protect these animals from experiencing unnecessary and inhumane torture.

Background: The animals listed in this bill cover a wide range of reptile, fish, and mammals. Many of the species included are listed as vulnerable or endangered under the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List, which assesses the conservation status of species at a global level, while many are also listed as least concern meaning they are at low risk of extinction. Many of the species included are listed and regulated internationally by the Convention for the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) and federally by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Others are further regulated under California state law or by California’s Fish and Game Commission (Commission) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). Many of the species are commercially harvested and killed for their skin and meat, and such operations occur under various levels of regulation and enforcement around the world. The animals included in this bill are described below.

Iguana. Iguana most likely refers to the genus Iguana consisting of two species of herbivorous lizards native to tropical areas of Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and South America. The green iguana is the most common and widespread of the two species and is popular as a pet, as well as for its meat and hide. Iguanas have been a major problem in Puerto Rico causing damage to infrastructure and native ecosystems leading to a bounty program and legalized hunting and exports of the meat and skin. Iguanas have also become a growing invasive species problem in the state of Florida. The trade of meat and skin is dwarfed by the trade in live iguanas. Iguanas are the most traded alive reptile species globally according to IUCN reports of CITES trade. The trade of live iguanas would not be covered by provisions in this bill. Using the term iguana may be confusing as many species in the family of lizards, Iguanidae, are also called iguanas including the Desert Iguana, a species native to southern California deserts, the taking of which is regulated by the Commission.

Skink. Over 1,500 species of lizards in the family Scincidae are called skinks. Skinks are found worldwide in a variety of habitats and can range in size between three and fourteen inches in length. Many skink species are listed as threatened and endangered worldwide. Two species of skinks, the Gilbert’s Skink and the Western Skink, can be found throughout California. The Commission regulates the taking of the species and anyone with a valid fishing license may take a limited number. CITES import and export reports show several thousand live skinks are traded annually. Only one report of 27 skink skins was reported in the last seven years, though a 2018 study on the challenges in documenting trade in non CITES-listed species in the Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity attributes this report to an error. Based on these statistics it is unclear how much of a skin trade in skinks actually occurs.

Caiman. Caiman are several species of reptile in the order Crocodillia, closely related to alligators and crocodiles. Caiman are listed as threatened under the ESA and Appendix II of CITES for their similarity to endangered crocodiles so the trade in their skin is highly regulated, but the trade in leather products made from their skin is not. Skins and meat are exported mainly from Colombia and Bolivia and shipped to Mexico, the U.S., and the European Union. Between 2012 and 2016, an average of 760,000 caiman skins were traded annually. While most caiman are caught in the wild, Colombia does have a significant number of exports sourced from farm-raised caiman.

Shark. Sharks are a group of cartilaginous fish in the class Chondrichthyes. There are more than 500 species of sharks found around the world in various habitats. Shark species are increasingly becoming threatened because of commercial and recreational fishing pressures, the impact of non-shark fisheries on the seabed and shark prey species, and other habitat alterations such as damage and loss from coastal development and marine pollution. More than 70 species are listed as vulnerable or endangered by the IUCN Red List and twenty species are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Due to their slow growth to maturity, and low reproductive rates, sharks are particularly vulnerable to overfishing. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) studies show that the population of many shark species have declined significantly since the 1960s, with some populations falling by as much as 80 percent. Conservationists estimate that 60 to 110 million sharks are killed globally each year. The majority are killed for their fins to make shark fin soup, which is a popular dish with social significance in Chinese culture. State and federal laws ban the common global practice of shark finning, cutting the fins off a live shark then discarding the shark back into the water. California also bans the commercial sale of shark fins with few exceptions.

Both NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), the agency that manages fisheries federally, and the DFW implement regulations to ensure the sustainable management of domestic shark fisheries. Within state waters, the Commission works with the DFW to set quotas and seasons for sharks found off the coast of California. In 2014, the global shark catch was an estimated 790,000 tons, though research suggests the actual number of sharks caught internationally each year is underestimated. In 2017, approximately 14,000 tons of sharks were caught nationally according to NOAA Fisheries commercial landing reports. Commercial shark fishing from California makes up a small percentage of the national total. According to DFW reports on commercial fish landings between 2013 and 2017, an annual average of 184,400 pounds (92 tons) of sharks from more than 15 different species were landed at California ports over the five-year period worth approximately $1 million. Additionally, according to DFW sport fishing surveys, more than 3,700 sharks were caught in 2017 and retained by recreational fishers.

Stingray. Stingrays are a group of sea rays in the same class as sharks. They are common in tropical and subtropical waters throughout the world including off the coast of California. There are more than 200 stingray species and over 40 are listed as vulnerable or endangered by the IUCN. Stingrays are eaten throughout the world, being especially popular in East Asia and Southeast Asia. Like sharks, the catching of rays is regulated both federally by NOAA Fisheries, and statewide by the DFW and the Commission. Between 2013 and 2018, an estimated 161,800 pounds of rays were landed commercially in California according to DFW landing statistics. Additionally, according to DFW sport fishing surveys, more than 9,000 rays were caught in 2017 and retained by recreational fishers. It is unclear if skates, a close relative of rays, would be affected by this ban. Between 2013 and 2018, an estimated 2.5 million pounds of skates were landed commercially in California. Several shark-like rays are also fished for their fins like sharks but they are not considered stingrays, so it is unclear what effects this proposed ban would have on them.

Hippopotamus. The hippopotamus (Hippopotamus Amphibius) is a large, mostly herbivorous, semiaquatic mammal endemic to sub-Saharan Africa. The species is listed as threatened under CITES and the commercial sale of hippopotamus ivory from their teeth is prohibited within the state of California by FGC § 2022, with a few exceptions for scientific, educational, or antique sales. The international ivory trade is the main focus for products from hippopotamuses but the hide is also used for a variety of leather products. CITES reports show less than 2,000 skins and hunting trophies were exported annually over the past several years.

Teju Lizard. Teju lizard most likely refers to lizards in the genus Tupinambis, though it could also refer to several species of lizards communally called tegu lizards that belong to the family Teiidae. These lizards are found primarily throughout South America, though several species are increasingly becoming an invasive species nuisance in Florida having been released there illegally. Teju lizards are large reptiles that can weigh nearly 15 pounds and reach around four feet in length. They are omnivorous and noted predators of ground nesting birds and crocodilian eggs. The skins of three species are heavily traded with over 4.7 million skins exported between 1996 and 2010, mostly from Argentina. These three species are listed in Appendix II under CITES, meaning trade is regulated but not banned and the three species are listed as least concern by the IUCN Red List.

Ring and Nile Lizards. The Ring Lizard, more commonly called the Asian water monitor, and the Nile Lizard, more commonly the Nile Monitor, are both large monitor lizards in the genus Varanus. Monitors can grow up to seven feet in length and weigh up to 40 pounds. The Nile monitor is found throughout Africa and the Asian water monitor is found, unsurprisingly, in South Asia from Sri Lanka to Indonesia. Both species are listed as least concern by the IUCN Red List, and their trade is regulated by CITES as they are listed under Appendix II. Between 1996 and 2010 more than 8.1 million skins of the Asian water monitor and 2.2 million skins of the Nile monitor were exported globally according to CITES reporting of imports and exports.

Uncertainty over Species Included in the Bill. The bill lists nine non-scientific animal names that cover thousands of species. In some cases, as discussed above, it is unclear what species would actually be included in the ban. Specifically, with the iguana and Teju Lizard listings, it is uncertain how many species are included within that non-scientific name. With stingray and the Ring and Nile lizards, it is unclear if other species similar and sometimes included with the common name would be affected. The author may wish to consider including the scientific names of the species, genus, order, family, or class of animals that are the focus of the bill.

Proper Venue for Regulating Native Species? The inclusion of sharks and stingrays in the proposed bill would prohibit the sale of native sharks and stingrays caught commercially in the fisheries off the coast of California. This bill would prohibit the commercial landing of sharks and rays at California ports, effectively shutting down these fisheries that are managed both by California and the federal government. It is unclear if a bill and code section regarding the importation and sale of mostly exotic wildlife is the proper venue for shutting down regulated commercial fisheries, while making no changes to the numerous sections of the Fish and Game Code regulating the fisheries. Such regulations on commercial fishing and sale of shark and stingrays may be better left to existing mechanisms and the rulemaking authority established within the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Fish and Game Commission, and NOAA Fisheries, agencies that are charged with managing these fisheries and ensuring sustainable commercial harvests.

Potential Domino Effect? Scientists estimate there are millions of species of animals globally with thousands of new ones being discovered each year. A piecemeal approach of listing animals for which commercial trade is prohibited may not be the most effective approach as it could lead to a cascade of proposals for a growing array of species. Working through existing agencies like the Commission and existing regulations like the California and federal Endangered Species Acts may provide more systematic, scientific, and comprehensive approaches.

Committee Amendment: The committee may wish to consider an amendment removing sharks and stingrays from the list of animals included in the ban. Specifically, the amendment strikes the words shark and stingray on page 2 in line 24:

[…]the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of an iguana, skink, caiman, shark, stingray, hippopotamus, or a Teju, Ring, or Nile lizard.

Prior and Related Legislation:

SB 1487 (Stern, 2018), would have prohibited the possession of specified African species and any part, product, or the dead body or parts thereof, except for educational or scientific purposes. This bill was passed by the Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 5). It was vetoed by Governor Brown.

AB 527 (Voepel, 2019), would allow the commercial importation and sale of parts and products from non-endangered alligators and crocodiles. It is currently in the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife.

Supporting Arguments: Supporters state that thousands of caiman, stingray, sharks, various lizards, and other species of exotic animals are killed for their skins each year. They argue that these animals are treated inhumanely and slaughtered in brutal and painful manners. Supporters also contend that some skins and products are mislabeled as coming from captive-bred animals when they are actually wild caught and often illegally traded. Supporters also argue there exists an array of alternative materials that look and feel like materials made from exotic skins and that many larger retailers are already switching to these alternative materials.

Opposing Arguments: Opponents say the bill would interfere with the lawful prosecution of state and federally managed fisheries in California. They note that several shark and skate/ray fisheries are managed sustainably in California and the federal waters adjacent to our state and enforcement is already extensive and severe. Opponents argue the sale and consumption of sustainably harvested sharks and skates in California is an important part of our state’s seafood markets and cultural heritage. They also contend the bill would prevent the lawful practices of commercial fishing permitted by federal agencies raising supremacy questions.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Compassionate Bay

PawPAC

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

Social Compassion in Legislation (Sponsor)

Individuals (203)

Opposition

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations

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