18 April 2018, 00:49
Thomas "Ty" BeahamFolks, I apologise for the formatting of the following.
I couldn't manage to attach the link to the PDF so I copy/pasted...
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Robert Hertzberg, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular
Bill No: SB 1487 Hearing Date: April 16, 2018
Author: Stern
Version: April 2, 2018
Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: William Craven
Subject: Iconic African Species Protection Act
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Section 2118 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits (except with permits) the importation
possession, or release of wild animals defined as bird, amphibians, mammals, and
other classes of animal life. Regulations to implement this and related sections of the
Fish and Game Code is delegated to the California Fish and Game Commission.
Specific penalty provisions may apply, but the general penalties for these provisions are
for a fine of from $500-$10,000 per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail for not
more than 6 months.
The federal endangered species act makes it illegal to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct" with
regard to an endangered or threatened species. In addition, the body parts and
products of endangered or threatened species cannot be imported, exported, or sold.
The federal endangered species act lists species regardless of the country the species
live in even though the prohibitions regarding those species apply only to people subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States. The federal endangered species act does not
prohibit the hunting of listed species outside the United States.
Section 653o of the Penal Code establishes a misdemeanor to import into California, to
possess with intent to sell, or to sell the dead body or any part or product of 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 lynch, or elephant.
A separate provision of Section 653o extends the sunset on the importation of certain
alligator and crocodile species until 1/1/20.
Section 653p of the Penal Code prohibits possession with the intent to sell or the sale of
a dead body or any part of any species or subspecies of animal or plant that is illegal to
import under the federal endangered species act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Section 653r of the Penal Code prohibits possession with the intent to sell or the sale of
a body or part from any animal specified in Section 653o or 653p of the Penal Code and
establishes any violation as a misdemeanor.
Section 2022 of the Fish and Game Code establishes penalties (and exceptions) for
possession and trading in goods made from ivory (from elephants and other species)
and rhinoceros horn.
SB 1487 (Stern) Page 2 of 6
Penalties are based on the value of the property. First convictions where the value is
$250 or less is subject to a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 plus up
to 30 days in the county jail. For first convictions where the value is more than $250, the
fine shall be not less than $5,000 and not more than $40,000 plus up to 1 year in the
county jail.
Subsequent convictions where the value is less than $250 have a penalty of not less
than $5,000 and not more than $40,000 plus up to 1 year in the county jail. Subsequent
convictions where the value is more than $250 have a penalty of not less than $10,000
and not more than $50,000 or the amount equal to two times the value whichever is
greater, plus up to 1 year in the county jail.
In addition to the these penalties, a separate administrative penalty may be imposed in
an amount up to $10,000 which has its separate provisions regarding notice to the
respondent, a public hearing, and appeals. Penalties issued pursuant to this provision
are deposited in the Fish and Game Preservation fund and used for law enforcement
purposes upon appropriation by the Legislature.
Federal regulations of the US Fish and Wildlife Service allow an individual to obtain an
import permit form its Division of Management Authority to import a sport-hunted trophy
for the hunter’s personal use provided that the import is for purposes that enhance the
propagation or survival of the species.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would enact the Iconic African Species Protection Act. It does all the following:
1) Defines “Iconic African Species” as any species or subspecies of African
elephant, African lion, leopard, black rhinoceros, white rhinoceros, giraffe,
Jentink’s duiker, plains zebra, mountain zebra, hippopotamus, and striped hyena,
including any part product or offspring, or the dead body or parts, excluding
fossils, whether or not included in a manufactured product or in a food product.
2) Includes the same definition of bona fide educational or scientific institution that
is used in Fish and Game Code 2022 (the ivory/rhino horn prohibition).
3) Prohibits the possession of these species by any individual, firm, corporation,
association, or partnership in California.
4) Provides exceptions to the prohibition as follows:
a) Employees of the federal, state, or local government undertaking a law
enforcement activity;
b) When the article is possessed for wholly noncommercial purposes and
was possessed within California before 1/1/2019 and is not thereafter
sold, offered for sale, traded, bartered, or distributed to any private
party within the state;
c) When the article is lawfully imported in the state pursuant to a permit or
exemption under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
Under such circumstances, the article must be removed from the state
and may not be possessed within the state.
d) For ivory and rhinoceros horn, the article must be possessed in
conformity with Fish and Game Code Section 2022.
SB 1487 (Stern) Page 3 of 6
e) If the article is distributed to legal beneficiary of a trust or heir, the
article may not be thereafter sold, offered for sale, traded, bartered, or
distributed to any private party.
5) Establishes penalties for a first violation of not less than $5,000 and not more
than $40,000 plus up to 1 year in the county jail.
6) Establishes penalties for subsequent convictions of not less than $10,000 and
not more than $50,000 plus up to 1 year in the county jail.
7) Authorizes a separate administrative penalty of up to $10,000 for a violation that
results in a fine, that is identical to the administrative penalties described above
pertaining to ivory and rhinoceros horn violations of state law.
8) States that this bill would not preclude enforcement under Section 2022 of the
Fish and Game Code or Sections 653o, 653p, or 653r of the Penal Code.
9) States that provisions of this bill are severable if a prohibition involving one
species is declared invalid.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, the world is currently witnessing a widespread decimation of
many of the most iconic and essential large animal populations throughout the African
continent. Between 2007 and 2014, Savanna elephant populations declined by 30
percent, equal to 144,000 elephants. African lion populations are estimated to have
declined by 43% between 1993 and 2014. Black rhino numbers have declined by
97.6% since 1960. The situation is just as dire for other species such as the white rhino,
leopard, giraffe, Jentink’s duiker, plains and mountain zebra, hippopotamus, and hyena.
By banning the possession of the dead body or body part of 12 of the most endangered
iconic African animal species, SB 1487 would take a big step towards promoting more
sustainable ecotourism activities that will save these important endangered animals for
generations to come.
In light of the recent decision by the federal government to allow elephant trophy
imports, it is time for California step up and send a signal that trophy hunting is
fundamentally unsustainable and should not be part of the solution to stemming the tide
of extinction.
According to the sponsor, Social Compassion in Legislation, this bill is intended to
create a legal obstacle to the importation of iconic African trophy species into California.
It points out that even though extinction is a natural phenomenon, that the planet is
currently experiencing a sixth mass extinction in the past half-billion years. The natural
background rate for extinctions is one to 5 species per year. The current rate of
extinction is 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens of species
going extinct every day. Despite the urgency of the situation, the sponsors argue that
we are failing to save even our most iconic species.
The sponsors argue that trophy hunting is not actually a form of conservation because
there are no peer-reviewed studies supporting that point of view. They argue instead
that trophy hunting and other lawful killing has negative effects on the species and
creates black-market trade and the funds paid to African governments may or may not
go to actual conservation work.
SB 1487 (Stern) Page 4 of 6
The Center for Biological Diversity provided information questioning the “sustainable”
nature of trophy hunting. It pointed out that lions may be the most well-known example.
Between 1999-2008, the U.S. imported about half of the lions killed in Africa. Several
new studies indicate that trophy hunting is the likely cause of multiple lion declines in
Africa and that in the regions where trophy hunting is not allowed, that lion populations
are increasing.
Additionally, other studies cited by this group (and Animal Defenders International)
indicate that as little as 3-5% of trophy hunting revenues are actually shared with local
communities. A 2017 study that surveyed eight African nations found that trophy hunting
operators and groups overstated the economic benefits and local employment derived
from trophy hunting. Trophy hunting proponents claim $426 million in annual revenues
in Africa, while the study indicated that it is actually less than $132 million. This is
roughly 0.78% of the $17 billion in tourism in these same countries.
One individual with specific knowledge of this bill is a retired Special Agent of the US
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sam Jojola. He said in his letter that state laws make a big
difference, and he pointed to Penal Code 653o which in his experience was used to
block illegal shipments of python and kangaroo into California. He also indicated that
because of exemptions in federal laws, including the federal endangered species act,
that this bill is necessary.
Separately, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife provided information that the
ivory prohibition (AB 96, Atkins) has been enforced in California. The department’s
budget was augmented for training and enforcement, and approximately $2.5 million
worth of illegal ivory has been seized. Some of these items include jewelry, Narwhal
Tusk, Netsuke figures, chess sets, ivory inlaid figurines, etc. Currently there have been
30 cases filed with county/city district attorney’s offices around the state. Within those
30 cases, the new unit successfully executed 11 search warrants. It currently has 37
pending/open investigations relating specifically to ivory. Additionally, there are 5 open
cases under Penal Code 653o.
The first conviction and sentencing under AB 96 was successfully prosecuted through
the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office. Oleg N. Chakov was found guilty on April 3 in
Los Angeles County Superior Court and sentenced to 10 days in county jail in lieu of a
$5,000 fine, three years’ probation and 30 days of community service. He is also
prohibited from possessing ivory and all evidence from the case was forfeited to the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
Safari Club International opposes the bill based on arguments that it is pre-empted by
the federal endangered species act, that many wildlife hunting and conservation groups
support anti-poaching efforts, that permit fees are distributed to local communities, that
African nations take very seriously the management and conservation of their native
wildlife, and that the bill does not reflect adequate science to support the proposed
prohibition.
SB 1487 (Stern) Page 5 of 6
COMMENTS
1. The focus of this bill is to establish California leadership on a matter of
significance to the conservation of African species that are frequently hunted as
trophy specimens. The “Iconic African Species” are the species chosen by the
sponsor and author because they are familiar trophy species and they are in
demonstrated need of additional conservation measures. Ten of these species
are considered threatened or endangered under federal law. Three are not listed
under federal law but are considered vulnerable or endangered by the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
2. California has previously established itself as a leader on related topics with
legislation that bans the import of species previously identified in the Penal Code
and most recently with the ban on importing ivory and rhino horns. California also
allowed the legal trade of kangaroo with Australia to sunset because of concerns
regarding that species.
3. While the importation of trophy specimens is supposedly regulated by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, data on violations related to the import of these
trophies shows nearly 3,000 violations since 2010, with about ½ involving
violations of the federal endangered species act. This information was provided
in a study by Cruise, The Effects of Trophy Hunting on five of Africa’s iconic wild
animal populations in six countries, Conservation Action Trust (2016).
4. There is also a political dimension to this bill that cannot be overlooked.
President Trump has publicly flipped on his position regarding the importation of
elephant trophies into the United States. However it is important to note that his
appointments to wildlife regulatory agencies may be far more significant. While
elephant trophy hunting was illegal under regulations adopted during the Obama
administration, a lawsuit by hunting organizations blocked the regulations. Last
year, the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced it planned to lift the ban on
trophy elephants and lions from Zimbabwe and Zambia even though the elephant
population has declined 11 percent since 2005 and as much as 74 percent in
certain regions. Elephants, as noted earlier, are listed as threatened under the
federal endangered species act. President Trump, in one of his tweets, said that
he would “be very hard pressed to change my mind that this horror show in any
way helps conservation of elephants or any other animal.”
However, just this month, the Fish and Wildlife Service decided to allow the
import of trophy animals on a case-by-case basis which represents a completely
new direction for this agency. President Trump may or may not weigh in again.
He has publicly disagreed with hunting advocates, but it is not known whether the
White House was involved in the latest decision. These imports would be allowed
based on a determination under existing regulations that the trophy hunting
contributed to the survival of the species. These regulations apply to many
species, including lions, not just elephants and it is unclear how broad the new
policy is. Litigation has been filed challenging the actions of the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
5. As noted, there is controversy whether the funds paid by hunters for expensive
trophy hunts fund actual conservation work and whether many African nations
successfully manage their conservation efforts. In a recent event, it was in
Zimbabwe where an American trophy hunter shot Cecil the lion, who was enticed
out of a national park for the killing. A National Geographic story concluded that it
SB 1487 (Stern) Page 6 of 6
is “notoriously hard to pin down” whether conservation funds are properly used.
In another example, Tanzania lost 2/3 of its lions from 1993-2014 despite a
trophy hunting program. The National Geographic conclusion is that it is
“impossible in kleptocracies” to track whether conservation funds conserve
threatened animals. African nations lack the ability and resources to implement
their conservation laws and conduct population surveys, prevent poaching, or
protect and restore habitat. Trophy hunting may only make the situation worse.
6. The Safari Club letter was late but is included as a courtesy. Not all of its
arguments were analyzed because of the lateness of their letter.
Double-referral The Rules Committee referred this bill to both the Committee on
Natural Resources and Water and to the Committee on Public Safety. Therefore, if this
bill passes this committee, it will be referred to the Committee on Public Safety, which
will consider the issues within their jurisdiction.
AMENDMENTS
Staff recommends the following amendments which are generally intended to make the
bill prospective, to eliminate the possibility of penalties being assessed against those
not involved in the trade of trophy animals, and to eliminate impractical deadlines.
1. Page 4, line 12. End the sentence after 2019 and delete lines 13-14.
2. Page 4, lines 17-18, delete.
3. Page 4, lines 26-28, delete.
SUPPORT
Animal Defenders International
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Center for Biological Diversity
Natural Resources Defense Council
Social Compassion in Legislation
Sam Jojola, retired US Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agent
Waterhouse Animal Hospital
Hundreds of individuals
OPPOSITION
Safari Club International
-- END
