PDA

View Full Version : deleted


brass
12-29-2009, 9:32 PM
deleted

anthonyca
12-29-2009, 9:39 PM
The plan is to make everyone a criminal. I don't know if it is even possible to not break one of the crazy laws atleast a few times a year.

Librarian
12-29-2009, 10:01 PM
I'd like to see more details of your analysis. I don't think this bill does all that - so please cite the pieces you think support your post.

You'll need to follow the amendments to the bill from as-introduced (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0701-0750/ab_708_bill_20090226_introduced.html) to chaptered (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0701-0750/ab_708_bill_20091011_chaptered.html) to distinguish what this bill did from what was already law.

For example, BLM is Federal - why would CA DFG be enforcing CA law inside a Federal jurisdiction?

bigcalidave
12-29-2009, 10:08 PM
Wth are you talking about. Even if you end up with a misdemeanor for killing some endangered species how does that make you in the same category as sexual deviants? I'm on my phone. What's the emoticon code for tin foil hat ? :foilcap: ?

Edit. :TFH: :TFH: :TFH:

chris
12-29-2009, 10:11 PM
lets see here since the begining of the summary of this law is in regards to poaching!

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_708/

AB 708, as amended, Huffman. Fish and wildlife: poaching.
Existing law regulates the taking or possession of birds, mammals,
fish, amphibians, and reptiles. Except as expressly provided
otherwise in the Fish and Game Code


AB 708 (Huffman)
Fish and wildlife: poaching.
AB 708, as amended, Huffman. Fish and wildlife: poaching.
Existing law regulates the taking or possession of birds, mammals,
fish, amphibians, and reptiles. Except as expressly provided
otherwise in the Fish and Game Code, any violation of that code, or
of any rule, regulation, or order made or adopted under that code, is
a misdemeanor. Existing law specifically imposes a fine of up to
$30,000 or up to one year of imprisonment, or both, for the knowing
unlawful taking of listed animals for commercial purposes, for the
knowing unlawful possession for commercial purposes of any part of a
mountain lion, bear, wild pig, bighorn sheep, elk, antelope, or deer,
a pelt of a furbearing mammal, a live reptile or amphibian, any
fully protected, threatened, or endangered species, or any quantity
of fish or shellfish in excess of the quantity permitted by the code,
and for the knowing unlawful sale for commercial purposes, or the
unlawful possession with the intent to sell, of any part of, or
product made from, any wildlife. Existing law, except as specified,
also prohibits any person convicted of a violation punishable under
those unlawful taking and possession and sale provisions from
thereafter taking wildlife in this state for a period of not less
than one year from the date of conviction, and provides for the
revocation of related entitlements. Existing law prohibits a person,
upon the 3rd conviction of a specified violation relating to the
taking or possession of fish, reptiles, or amphibia, or parts
thereof, in any 5-year period, and upon any subsequent conviction
during a 5-year period, from taking any fish, reptiles, or amphibia
in the state for 3 years from the date of the last conviction, and
requires the Fish and Game Commission to revoke the sport fishing
license of such a person for the period of the prohibition.
This bill would delete those unlawful taking and possession and
sale provisions and those specific taking and entitlement
prohibitions. The bill would, instead, except as specified, provide
that any person who illegally takes, possesses, imports, exports,
sells, purchases, barters, trades, or exchanges any amphibian, bird,
fish, mammal, or reptile, or part thereof, for profit or personal
gain, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less
than $5,000, nor more than $40,000, or imprisonment in the county
jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and
imprisonment. The bill would increase the fine for a 2nd or
subsequent violation. The bill would require that moneys equivalent
to 50% of the revenue deposited in the Fish and Game Preservation
Fund from fines and forfeitures collected pursuant to these
provisions be allocated for the support of the Special Operations
Unit of the Department of Fish and Game and used for law enforcement
purposes and 50% of the revenue from a fine or forfeiture
be paid to the county in which the offense was committed.
The bill would require the county board of supervisors to first use
those revenues to reimburse the costs incurred by the district
attorney or city attorney in investigating and prosecuting the
violation and would authorize the expenditure of any excess revenues
in accordance with specified existing law.
The bill , except as specified, would provide
that any person who illegally takes or possesses in the field more
than 3 times the daily bag limit, or who illegally possesses more
than 3 times the legal possession limit, of fish, reptiles, birds,
amphibians, or mammals is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine
of not less than $5,000 nor more than $40,000, or imprisonment in the
county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and
imprisonment. The bill would increase the fine for a 2nd or
subsequent violation. The bill, except as specified, would provide
that any person who maliciously or and
intentionally maims, mutilates, or physically tortures any
fish, reptile, bird, amphibian, or mammal provided for in the code
is guilty of a crime punishable as prescribed. The bill would require
that 50% of the revenue from a fine or forfeiture
collected pursuant to these provisions be paid to the county in
which the offense was committed. The bill would require the county
board of supervisors to first use those revenues to reimburse the
costs incurred by the district attorney or city attorney in
investigating and prosecuting the violation and would authorize the
expenditure of any excess revenues in accordance with specified
existing law.
The bill would authorize the department, upon a conviction of
certain violations, to suspend or permanently revoke a person's
hunting or sport fishing license or permit privileges. The bill would
authorize any person whose privileges are suspended or revoked to
appeal the suspension or revocation to the commission, and would
require the commission to initiate the appeal process within 12
months of the violator's appeal request. The bill would authorize the
department to adopt regulations to implement those suspension and
revocation provisions. The bill would authorize the forfeiture of any
device or apparatus, including a vessel, vehicle, or hunting or
fishing gear, used in the commission of specified
offenses.
The bill, by creating new crimes, 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.

i have not seen anything in the summary of this law that states what you have.


1. Picking up a sand crab at the beach.
2. Gathering kindling on BLM land.
3. Selling an antler, skull, skin .. online, yard sale, or at a swap meet.
4. Driving through a puddle that contains insect larvae.
5. Placing a pine cone in your vehicle.
6. Placing a loaded pellet gun on the tailgate of your pickup while camping on BLM land.
7. Cleaning up a slob's 'targets' on a tree when a DFG agent drives up.



i believe this law has more to do with POACHING than some kid picking up a sand crab at the beach.
if you have anymore on this law that specificly states what you have listed that would be great.

brass
12-29-2009, 10:13 PM
deleted

chris
12-29-2009, 10:15 PM
the only problem with your initial post is quite alarming and scary. but after looking at the bill that you stated it's directed at poachers. who by all rights should be slammed for doing so. not the occasional fisherman who uses a sand crabs for bait and picking up shed antlers found in the forest if you can find them.

nick
12-30-2009, 12:31 AM
Wth are you talking about. Even if you end up with a misdemeanor for killing some endangered species how does that make you in the same category as sexual deviants? I'm on my phone. What's the emoticon code for tin foil hat ? :foilcap: ?

Edit. :tfh: :tfh: :tfh:

:TFH: :p

You have to use capital letters for it.

GrizzlyGuy
12-30-2009, 8:20 AM
Here is an analysis of the bill (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0701-0750/ab_708_cfa_20090427_115927_asm_comm.html). No arguments in opposition were presented, and the bill passed unanimously in both the assembly and senate. It increases penalties for poaching, but doesn't seem to do anything else. Per here (http://www.ammoland.com/2009/10/20/new-law-targets-poachers-not-sportsmen/), initial drafts could have been harmful to law-abiding hunters, but amendments corrected those problems:

When AB 708 was first introduced it arguably cast far too wide a net and could have criminalized otherwise law abiding hunters and anglers. After working closely with Assembly Member Huffman, his staff, the Department of Fish and Game and other conservation partners, COHA was able to help amend AB 708 to more narrowly target illegal commercialization and flagrant poaching of California’s fish and game resources.

IMHO, people shooting and hunting on federal lands are more at risk from a number of federal regulations that people often aren't familiar with. For example, placing a target on a live tree is a no-no since you would be harming the tree when you shoot. There is a recent thread in Calguns where someone was cited for that. This excellent thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457) by MudCamper summarizes and links to the various regulations. If there was ever a non-stickied thread that deserves stickydom, I think that's the one. :)

jasilva
12-30-2009, 10:56 AM
Excellent responses gentlemen. I am 100% behind prosecuting anyone who trashes plants, animals, or the environment. No doubt about it and we agree on that.

All I'm saying is that once your name is in the DOJ system because you were cited by a DFG agent and convicted of the violation, you are a convicted misdemeanant. That done, if you are queried by LE or a prospective employer, you fall in the same generic category of 'convicted misdemeanant'.

I'm not making the distinction between the kind or severity of the crime and of course I understand that all misdemeanors are not the same. All I'm saying is that a moment of carelessness and a contact with an unsympathetic agent could have some really unpleasant consequences.

The bill specifies what constitutes poaching as used in the bill.

This bill would delete those unlawful taking and possession and
sale provisions and those specific taking and entitlement
prohibitions. The bill would, instead, except as specified, provide
that any person who illegally takes, possesses, imports, exports,
sells, purchases, barters, trades, or exchanges any amphibian, bird,
fish, mammal, or reptile, or part thereof, for profit or personal
gain, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less
than $5,000, nor more than $40,000, or imprisonment in the county
jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and
imprisonment.

Over bag limit to take home and eat won't qualify. 3x bag limit is where you start getting into poaching for profit territory based on existing case law. This bill is aimed at the people that are taking bears for the livers and loading up on undersize abs, crabs and stripers to sell in the asian markets. If you have one to many trout in your bag and get busted they have to prove the personal gain portion of the crime.

hoffmang
12-30-2009, 2:37 PM
If COHA (http://www.outdoorheritage.org/) opposed it until amended, then it, in amended form, is no problem.

COHA is very good at what they do which is protect Outdoor and Hunting organizations members' rights.

-Gene

Meplat
12-30-2009, 3:54 PM
CA DFG does a huge amount of enforcement on federal land. It's still CA, and CA fish & game laws apply. Though I have heard of some friction between the entities in the past.



I'd like to see more details of your analysis. I don't think this bill does all that - so please cite the pieces you think support your post.

You'll need to follow the amendments to the bill from as-introduced (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0701-0750/ab_708_bill_20090226_introduced.html) to chaptered (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0701-0750/ab_708_bill_20091011_chaptered.html) to distinguish what this bill did from what was already law.

For example, BLM is Federal - why would CA DFG be enforcing CA law inside a Federal jurisdiction?