The Effective Free Classifieds

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Section 681(New) Title 14, California Code of Regulations
Re: Hybrid Animals and Plants

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REGULATORY ACTION
(Pre-publication of Notice Statement)

Add Section 681(New)
Title 14, California Code of Regulations
Re: Hybrid Animals and Plants

TITLE 14. Fish and Game Commission
Notice of Proposed Changes in Regulations

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fish and Game Commission (Commission), pursuant to
the authority vested by sections 200, 203, 205 and 2120, of the Fish and Game Code and to
implement, interpret or make specific sections 1002, 2000, 2001, 2116, 2118, 2118.2, 2118.4, 2119-
2155, 2190, and 2271 of said Code, proposes to add Section 681, Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, relating to Hybrid Animals and Plants.

Informative Digest/Policy Statement Overview

The Department should have as an enforcement tool a general section regulating hybrid plants
and animals. A hybrid of two or more species is not a specific species and therefore is not
addressed within most regulations or code sections referring to limits, seasons, take, and
possession. Potential examples are: a hybrid bass (i.e. largemouth and spotted bass that
naturally occurs in a lake), hybrids of restricted exotic cats and non-restricted domestic cats,
and hybrid canines such as coy-dogs (coyote and dog).

The mixing of species is expanding as scientific methods improve. Examples of potential
problem areas are abalone, fin fish, falconry, waterfowl, aquaculture, and restricted exotic
species. The proposal would not only help regulate true hybrids but would help in preventing
violators from using a “hybrid defense”. The proposal would give the Department flexibility in
enforcing various laws and regulations. Nature and science can produce hybrids and an
agency which enforces plant and animal laws is placed at a disadvantage if it lacks regulations
to reasonably address hybrid issues.

NOTICE IS GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or in writing,
relevant to this action at a hearing to be held at the Yolo Fliers Club, Ballroom,
17980 County Road 94B, Woodland, California, on Thursday, October 1, 2009, at 8:30 a.m., or
as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or in
writing, relevant to this action at a hearing to be held at the Yolo Fliers Club, Ballroom,
17980 County Road 94B, Woodland, California, on Thursday, November 5, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.,
or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. It is requested, but not required, that written
comments be submitted on or before October 29, 2009 at the address given below, or by fax at
(916) 653-5040, or by e-mail to FGC@fgc.ca.gov. Written comments mailed, faxed or e-mailed
to the Commission office, must be received before 5:00 p.m. on November 2, 2009. All
comments must be received no later than November 5, 2009, at the hearing in Woodland, CA.
If you would like copies of any modifications to this proposal, please include your name and
mailing address.
The regulations as proposed in strikeout-underline format, as well as an initial statement of
reasons, including environmental considerations and all information upon which the proposal is
based (rulemaking file), are on file and available for public review from the agency
representative, John Carlson, Jr., Executive Director, Fish and Game Commission, 1416 Ninth
Street, Box 944209, Sacramento, California 94244-2090, phone (916) 653-4899. Please direct
requests for the above mentioned documents and inquiries concerning the regulatory process to
John Carlson, Jr., or Sheri Tiemann at the preceding address or phone number. Mr. Rob Allen,
Enforcement Branch, Department of Fish and Game, (916) 651-9953 has been designated
to respond to questions on the substance of the proposed regulations. Copies of the
Initial Statement of Reasons, including the regulatory language, may be obtained from the
address above. Notice of the proposed action shall be posted on the Fish and Game
Commission website at http://www.fgc.ca.go­v.

Availability of Modified Text

If the regulations adopted by the Commission differ from but are sufficiently related to the action
proposed, they will be available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date of adoption.
Circumstances beyond the control of the Commission (e.g., timing of Federal regulation
adoption, timing of resource data collection, timelines do not allow, etc.) or changes made to be
responsive to public recommendation and comments during the regulatory process may
preclude full compliance with the 15-day comment period, and the Commission will exercise its
powers under Section 202 of the Fish and Game Code. Regulations adopted pursuant to this
section are not subject to the time periods for adoption, amendment or repeal of regulations
prescribed in Sections 11343.4, 11346.4 and 11346.8 of the Government Code. Any person
interested may obtain a copy of said regulations prior to the date of adoption by contacting the
agency representative named herein.
If the regulatory proposal is adopted, the final statement of reasons may be obtained from the
address above when it has been received from the agency program staff.

Impact of Regulatory Action
The potential for significant statewide adverse economic impacts that might result from the
proposed regulatory action has been assessed, and the following initial determinations relative
to the required statutory categories have been made:

(a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Business, Including
the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States:

The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact
directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with
businesses in other states. The proposal recognizes the heritage of animals and plants
enabling the Department to maintain control of species, and their hybrids, that it already
regulates.

(b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs within the State, the Creation of New
Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or the Expansion of Businesses in
California:

No significant impact. Possible impact in those that deal in hybrids of restricted species.

(c) Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business:

The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or
business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.
However, undesirable hybrids can be affected and therefore those that commercially
deal in such hybrids may be affected.
2
(d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State:

None.

(e) Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies:

None.

(f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts:

None.

(g) Costs Imposed on any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be
Reimbursed Under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4, Government
Code:

None.
(h) Effect on Housing Costs:

None.

Effect on Small Business

It has been determined that the adoption of these regulations may affect small business. The
Commission has drafted the regulations in Plain English pursuant to Government Code sections
11342.580 and 11346.2(a)(1).

Consideration of Alternatives

The Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Commission,
or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Commission, would be
more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as
effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action.

FISH AND GAME COMMISSION

John Carlson, Jr.
Dated: September 1, 2009 Executive Director

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REGULATORY ACTION
(Pre-publication of Notice Statement)

I. Date of Initial Statement of Reasons: July 1, 2009

II. Dates and Locations of Scheduled Hearings:

(a) Notice Hearing: Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Woodland

(b) Discussion Hearing: Date: October 1, 2009
Location: Woodland, CA

(c) Adoption Hearing: Date: November 5, 2009
Location: Woodland

III. Description of Regulatory Action:

(a) Statement of Specific Purpose of Regulation Change and Factual Basis
for Determining that Regulation Change is Reasonably Necessary:

The Fish and Game Code and its implementing regulations do not contain
a general section regulating hybrid plants and animals. A fish, mammal,
or plant that is a hybrid of two or more species is not a specific species
and therefore is not addressed within most regulations and code sections
referring to bag limits, seasons, take, possession limits and mere
possession. Examples are a hybrid between bass species (i.e.
largemouth and spotted bass), hybrids of exotic cats, and hybrid canines
such as coy-dogs. Some individuals have attempted to exploit this
loophole in the law, by claiming that their animals are hybrids, and
therefore no regulation applies to their take or possession.

Although some hybrids occur naturally, further hybridizations of species
are expected as scientific methods improve. Examples of potential
problem areas include abalone, fin fish, falconry, waterfowl, aquaculture,
and restricted species. The proposal would not only help regulate true
hybrids but would help in preventing violators from using a “hybrid
defense” by causing the Department to be forced to prove a specific
animal is indeed a specific species and therefore regulated. The proposal
would give wardens latitude in enforcing laws without having to contend
with a biological grey area as it relates to proof of species. An agency
which enforces plant and animal laws is placed at a disadvantage if it
lacks regulations to reasonably address hybrid issues.

(b) Authority and Reference Sections from Fish and Game Code for
Regulation:

Authority: Sections 200, 203, 205 and 2120, Fish and Game Code.

Reference: Sections 1002, 2000, 2001, 2116, 2118, 2118.2, 2118.4, 2119-
2155, 2190, and 2271, Fish and Game Code.

(c) Specific Technology or Equipment Required by Regulatory Change:

None

(d) Identification of Reports or Documents Supporting Regulation Change:

None

(e) Public Discussions of Proposed Regulations Prior to Notice Publication:

None

IV. Description of Reasonable Alternatives to Regulatory Action:

(a) Alternatives to Regulation Change:

An alternative would be to amend multiple sections within the Code and or
T-14. This is unnecessary since a general section can remedy the
majority of issues and those issues that need specific attention can be
made exceptions to the general provision.

(b) No Change Alternative:

The no change alternative was considered and rejected due to the fact
that ignoring the problem would leave the situation unresolved.

(c) Consideration of Alternatives:

In view of information currently possessed, no reasonable alternative
considered would be more effective in carrying out the purposes for which
the regulation is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome
to the affected private persons than the proposed regulation.
V. Mitigation Measures Required by Regulatory Action:

The proposed regulatory action will have no negative impact on the environment;
therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.

VI. Impact of Regulatory Action:

The potential for significant statewide adverse economic impacts that might result
from the proposed regulatory action has been assessed, and the following initial
determinations relative to the required statutory categories have been made:

(a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting
Businesses, Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with
Businesses in Other States:

The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse
economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of
California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.
The proposal recognizes the heritage of animals and plants enabling
the Department to maintain control of species, and their hybrids, that it
already regulates.

(b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State, the
Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or
the Expansion of Businesses in California
No significant impact. Possible impact in those that deal in hybrids of
restricted species.

(c) Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business:

The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private
person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with
the proposed action. However, undesirable hybrids can be affected and
therefore those that commercially deal in such hybrids may be affected.

(d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding
to the State:

None

(e) Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies:

None

(f) Programs mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts:

None

(g) Costs Imposed on Any Local Agency or School District that is Required
to be Reimbursed Under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of
Division 4:

None

(h) Effect on Housing Costs:

None

Informative Digest/Policy Statement Overview

The Department should have as an enforcement tool a general section regulating
hybrid plants and animals. A hybrid of two or more species is not a specific species and
therefore is not addressed within most regulations or code sections referring to limits,
seasons, take, and possession. Potential examples are: a hybrid bass (i.e. largemouth
and spotted bass that naturally occurs in a lake), hybrids of restricted exotic cats and
non-restricted domestic cats, and hybrid canines such as coy-dogs (coyote and dog).

The mixing of species is expanding as scientific methods improve. Examples of
potential problem areas are abalone, fin fish, falconry, waterfowl, aquaculture, and
restricted exotic species. The proposal would not only help regulate true hybrids but
would help in preventing violators from using a “hybrid defense”. The proposal would
give the Department flexibility in enforcing various laws and regulations. Nature and
science can produce hybrids and an agency which enforces plant and animal laws is
placed at a disadvantage if it lacks regulations to reasonably address hybrid issues.

PLEASE HELP US STOP THIS BAN FROM BECOMING LAW. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION
SEE WEBSITE BELOW.THANK YOU FOR YOUR MUCH NEEDED SUPPORT.
~HELPING HOWL~Kathy Howes

E-mail