BILL ANALYSIS
SB 880
Page 1
REPLACE - 08/13/2007
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 880 (Calderon)
As Amended July 10, 2007
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :27-8
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 8-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wolk, Maze, Anderson, | | |
| |Berryhill, Charles | | |
| |Calderon, Huffman, | | |
| |La Malfa, Parra | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Caballero, Lieu | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Repeals, until January 1, 2011, the state prohibition
and criminal penalty on the importation or sale of kangaroo
parts or products in California. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that it shall be lawful to import or sell in
California products made from kangaroos harvested lawfully
under Australian national and state law, the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA), and applicable international
conventions, provided that the Department of Fish and Game
(DFG) is annually informed by the Australian government that
the commercial harvest of kangaroos in any future year will
not exceed the official quota established for 2007 or what the
lawful take of kangaroos is in each subsequent year, whichever
is less.
2)Requires DFG, if it fails to receive the annual report
referred to in paragraph 1) above, to inform the Australian
government that future importation of kangaroos into
California shall be halted and their importation or sale in
this state shall be unlawful and subject to criminal penalty.
3)Provides that the provisions allowing for importation and sale
of kangaroo parts or products in California shall sunset on
SB 880
Page 2
January 1, 2011.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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
any 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.
2)Allows the sale of crocodile or alligator parts or products
until January 1, 2010, after which date it shall be unlawful
to import or sell the parts or products of these animals in
California.
3)Makes a violation of this section a misdemeanor, punishable by
a fine of $1,000 to $5,000 and/or six months in county jail.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill was not heard in a fiscal
committee.
COMMENTS : This bill allows products made from wild kangaroos
harvested in Australia to be legally sold in California, subject
to certain conditions. Kangaroos are native to Australia and
New Guinea. There are 55 species of kangaroos in Australia,
only the four most abundant of which may be commercially
harvested on the Australian mainland. The four species
commercially harvested include the Red, Eastern Gray, Western
Gray, and Euro (Wallaroo) kangaroo. According to the Australian
government, the combined population size of kangaroos has
fluctuated between 15 and 50 million animals over the past 20
years, depending on climatic conditions, including cyclical
droughts. The kangaroo population is currently in decline, due
to an extended drought. According to statistics maintained by
the Australian Department of Environment and Heritage, kangaroo
populations in Australia are currently less than half what they
were in 2001.
Harvest quotas are set on an annual basis based on aerial
population surveys. The goal of the quotas is to determine a
scientifically estimated sustained yield based on a proportion
SB 880
Page 3
of the previous year's population. Commercial harvest quotas
have been reduced over the past few years, due primarily to
reductions in kangaroo populations as a result of the drought.
The author has introduced this bill to make importation and sale
of products made from kangaroo hides legal in California.
Currently, these products may be legally imported and sold in 48
other states, and can be purchased by Californians over the
Internet. The author contends this bill is needed to allow
California retailers to sell products made from kangaroo
leather, such as soccer cleats, and asserts that the ban on
these products puts California sporting good stores and other
retailers selling athletic shoes at a competitive disadvantage
vis-?-vis out-of-state retailers. The author believes that this
bill will still allow California to prohibit the sale of
products made from threatened or endangered kangaroos.
It should be noted that the California Supreme Court on July 23,
2007, issued a decision in Viva! International Voice for Animals
v. Adidas holding that state law prohibiting the importation and
sale of kangaroo products in California is not preempted by
federal endangered species law, reversing the lower court. The
Court found that the state law poses no obstacle to any current
federal policy and therefore is not preempted. The Court notes
that wildlife management is within the traditional policy powers
of the states, and that the scope of this power extends to
regulation of foreign species. The Court also notes that the
federal ESA envisioned a joint cooperative state-federal
approach to wildlife preservation, that Congress intended the
federal preemption clause in the ESA to be applied narrowly,
that state law regarding the taking of endangered or threatened
species may be more restrictive than federal law, and that, with
respect to unlisted species such as the three kangaroo species
at issue here, the ESA leaves undisturbed the states' broad
traditional regulatory authority. The Court also noted that
California's law on kangaroos applies to all kangaroo species,
not just those listed under the federal law. While disposing of
the preemption question, the Court remanded the case to the
lower court to decide remaining claims asserted by Adidas. The
Court also pointed out that it was ruling only on the preemption
question, and was not ruling on the wisdom of Australia's
wildlife management practices, or on the wisdom of California's
law.
SB 880
Page 4
Supporters assert this bill will help eliminate a competitive
disadvantage to California businesses caused by the prohibition
on sales of kangaroo products in California, since the products
are available for purchase from other states through mail order
and internet sales. The Chamber of Commerce in support notes
that small businesses are affected the most since they operate
on slim profit margins. The Australian government supports this
bill and asserts that kangaroo harvesting is important for both
kangaroo population management and sustainable land care in
Australia's rangelands, including protection of habitat for
other native animals. The Australian government also disputes
the claim that endangered species are being mistaken for those
that are legal to harvest. According to the Australian
government, there are currently no endangered kangaroos on the
Australian mainland, and although there are several species of
endangered wallabies, these species are considerably smaller and
easily distinguished. In addition, supporters claim that while
there is some overlap in the province of southwest Queensland
between the territories of the Western gray, which is protected
in Queensland, and the Eastern gray which may legally be taken,
these two species are distinguishable when viewed at close range
and in good light, and neither is endangered. The Australian
government also asserts that the requirements for tagging and
processing of skins makes it unlikely that endangered kangaroos
are being processed for export, since only kangaroos with tags
may be processed.
Major league soccer teams, soccer clubs, and coaches'
associations support this bill because they believe it will
provide greater access to high quality soccer shoes that will
help improve performance. Several sporting goods manufacturers
and retailers support this bill because it will allow for the
sale of athletic products made from kangaroo leather.
Opponents, primarily organizations devoted to animal protection,
argue that Australia's regulation of kangaroo hunting does not
ensure that only abundant species of kangaroo are being killed.
Since kangaroo harvesting occurs primarily at night, opponents
claim that many endangered species continue to be killed by
hunters who cannot differentiate between endangered species and
the abundant species that can legally be harvested. In addition
to the difficulty in distinguishing endangered and
non-endangered kangaroos, the opposition expresses a lack of
confidence in the Australian government's management of the
SB 880
Page 5
species and claims that some species of kangaroos are being shot
at a rate which exceeds their reproduction rate.
The main argument raised by opponents is their objection to what
are perceived as inhumane methods of killing kangaroos,
particularly joeys (baby kangaroos) found in the pouches of
mother kangaroos which are shot. The Australian Code of
Practice for humane shooting of kangaroos provides that, "Shot
females must be examined for pouch young and if one is present
it must also be killed. Decapitation with a sharp instrument in
very small hairless young or a properly executed heavy blow to
destroy the brain in larger young are effective means of causing
sudden and painless death." The Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has recommended that the Code
of Practice be amended to prohibit the shooting of female
kangaroos carrying large pouch young.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0002295