Thread: AB 2179 (Allen)

  1. #1
    Fish Reports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Where the fish are!
    Posts
    75

    Default AB 2179 (Allen)

    I was trying to pull post from the "soon to be archived messages", so forgive me if I missed some messages on Bill AB 2179 . Feel free to add some that I missed or continue to discuss it here. I did a quick search and found these sites:

    AB 2179 (Allen): Fish and game: enforcement and penalties. (California Assembly Bill)
    Bill List

  2. #2
    Fish Reports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Where the fish are!
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Posted by Bob Hather (Windfall), on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - 8:02 pm:


    Here is this week's battle sumed up in a letter of opposition.
    May 22, 2012


    TO: Members, California State Assembly


    FROM:


    RE: AB 2179 (Allen) – OPPOSE


    The above listed organizations are writing in opposition to AB 2179 (Allen). Giving the Department of Fish and Game (Department) the authority to impose significant civil administrative penalties for any Fish and Game Code violation is an unnecessary expansion of its authority. The current system of penalties provides the necessary due process for suspected violators making this bill unnecessary. Please vote NO on AB 2179 (Allen).


    The existing sections of Fish and Game Code being repealed by AB 2179 (Allen) are limited to violations relating to illegal taking of fish and wildlife. AB 2179 (Allen) not only significantly expands the Department’s authority to issue civil penalties, but it also expands these sections to apply to any and all violations of the Fish and Game Code, including relatively minor violations. Currently the Department must work with local District Attorney’s or the Attorney General to prosecute violations of certain provisions of the Fish and Game Code, providing necessary due process to accused parties. AB 2179 (Allen) removes this due process, which is particularly concerning.


    AB 2179 (Allen) gives the Department the authority to issue fines of up to $20,000 for any violations. These could include minor paperwork violations or using the wrong bait when fishing. The Department gets to keep the fine monies it generates providing the opportunity to act with a “bounty hunter” mentality. Further, the bill has the Department setting its own penalty guidelines removing the current checks and balance system between the Department and Fish and Game Commission.


    AB 2179 (Allen) inappropriately expands the Department’s civil administrative penalty authority and we, again, urge you to vote NO on AB 2179 (Allen).

  3. #3
    Fish Reports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Where the fish are!
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Posted by daniel holtzman (Stickman), on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - 10:04 pm:


    also here is a breakdown of AB2179, a bill that is complete horse exhaust and needs to be shot down its a long post sorry




    Existing law authorizes the Fish and Game Commission, or any person appointed by the commission, to conduct a hearing, to cause the deposition of witnesses, as prescribed, and to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and papers, in accordance with certain requirements.
    This bill would eliminate the prohibition that the commission not revoke or suspend any license or permit until specified regulations have been adopted and approved, as specified. This bill would also eliminate the provision that any deliberation conducted by the commission, or conducted by any person appointed by the commission to conduct a hearing, is required to be conducted pursuant to the law governing administrative adjudication.
    Existing law requires the commission to adopt guidelines, by regulation, to assist the director and the department in ascertaining the amount of specified civil penalties, as prescribed.
    This bill would repeal these provisions.
    Existing law permits the Department of Fish and Game to impose civil liability upon any person for specified acts, with prescribed exceptions, done for profit or personal again, for unlawfully exporting, importing, possessing, receiving, or transporting in interstate commerce any container or package containing any bird, mammal, amphibian, reptile, or fish, or any endangered or threatened species, or any fully protected bird, mammal, or fish unless the container is marked as prescribed, and for any unlawful failure or refusal to maintain any records or paperwork as required. Under existing law, the department may assess a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each bird, mammal, amphibian, reptile, or fish, or for each endangered or threatened species, or each fully protected bird, mammal, or fish unlawfully taken, possessed, transported, imported, received, purchased, acquired, or sold, in addition to any other applicable penalty. Existing law also requires the department to consult with the district attorney in the jurisdiction where a violation is alleged to have occurred, and before proceeding with a civil action, to seek the concurrence of the Attorney General, as described. Existing law permits the Director of Fish and Game to issue a complaint to any person on whom a civil penalty may be imposed, in accordance with specified provisions, and requires a referee or hearing board, as provided for, to conduct any required hearing.
    This bill would repeal these provisions. This bill would instead permit the department to impose administrative civil penalties not to exceed $20,000 and determined as prescribed, upon any person who has violated any provision of the code or regulations adopted pursuant to the code. This bill would authorize the department to adopt regulations that include a fee schedule to provide guidance in assessing these civil penalties. This bill would require, prior to the imposition of administrative penalties, a person to be given a written notice of the proposed action. This bill would require a person who receives notice of a proposed penalty to have the right to request a hearing before the department in accordance with specified procedures. This bill would permit the department to take the action proposed without a hearing if a hearing is not requested. This bill would permit a party ordered to pay an administrative penalty and who appeared at a hearing to appeal to the director, as prescribed. This bill would permit a person served with a copy of an order setting the amount of a civil penalty to file with the superior court a petition for a writ of mandate for review of the order, as specified. This bill would permit the department to file a certified copy of the final decision that directs payment of an administrative penalty and, if applicable, any order that denies a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus with the clerk of the superior court of any county, would require the clerk to enter judgment, and would prohibit the clerk from charging fees for the performance of any official service required in connection with this entry of judgment. This bill would require any administrative penalties received pursuant to these provisions to be deposited into the Fish and Game Preservation Fund.
    Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires any public record of a state or local agency to be open to inspection at all times during office hours of the agency and, upon request, a copy shall be made promptly available to any person upon payment of copying costs. The act makes certain records exempt from disclosure.
    This bill would, after all appeals are final, provide that records of the appeal to the director are public records, as defined by the act.

  4. #4
    Fish Reports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Where the fish are!
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Posted by Robert Grillo (Devildog), on Sunday, May 27, 2012 - 11:15 am:

    Just to let you guys know who is behind this radical BS.-- AB 2179


    Born Free USA position: SUPPORT




    Update (May 16, 2012): The bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee today and now goes before the full Assembly.


    Bill description: Would increase the ability of the Department of Fish and Game to prosecute and penalize those who violate Fish and Game code (i.e., laws that protect wildlife). The provisions of this bill that would increase enforcement authority for violations of the law are expected to also have a deterrent effect, thereby increasing compliance with wildlife laws and reducing wildlife law enforcement burden. This bill is co-sponsored by Born Free USA and the San Francisco Wildlife Center.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Nipomo Mesa
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Hello, Hello, Is anyone here!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in