New address/phone: PO Box 20425, El Sobrante, CA 94820. 510/222-2236

www.pawpac.org. info@pawpac.org  

2011 CALIFORNIA ANIMAL LEGISLATION FINAL EDITION
 
“A dog starved at his master’s gate predicts the ruin of the state.” William Blake
 
PASSED
 
AB 42 by Jared Huffman re: State Parks. Support.  
  Authorizes agreements with non-profit organizations for the care and maintenance of state parks 70 of which may be closed due to budget cuts. Closing them invites trespassers and poachers.
 
AB 109 by Assembly Budget Committee.
  Amends anti-cruelty laws, along with many other codes, to send those convicted of felonies to serve their time in county jails instead of state prisons.
 
AB 222 by Assembly Agriculture Committee.
  Defines “business day” for the purpose of holding periods in animal control shelters to include any day the shelter is open 4 hours.
 
AB 258 by Curt Hagman re: Rabies. Support.
  Allows exemption of rabies shot requirement for dogs with medical conditions as determined by a vet.
 
AB 376 by Paul Fong and Jared Huffman re: Sharks. Support.
  Prohibits possession and sale of shark fins. Shark populations are threatened by the cruel practice of cutting off fins and throwing their amputated bodies back into the sea. Over 73 millions are killed for soup.
 
AB 564 by Cameron Smyth re:  Spay/Neuter Tax Check-Off. Support.
  Re-authorizes the state tax check-off for spay/neuter to be distributed as grants to municipal shelters.
 
AB 634 by Alyson Huber re:  Wildlife.  
  Authorizes the use of carbon monoxide for the next five years in the killing of burrowing wildlife considered “pests”, such as gophers.
 
AB 971 by Bill Monning re: Sea Otters. Support.  
  Extends the Sea Otter tax check-off for five more years to protect sea otters.
 
AB 1112 by Jared Huffman re: Oil Spill Prevention. Support.
  Requires inspection of high risk oil transfers and authorizes the state to increase per barrel fee by 1 ½ cents to help pay for oil spill prevention.
   
AB 1117 by Cameron Smyth re: Cruelty. Support.
  Strengthens existing law on confiscation and holding of animals in cruelty cases and imposes a $1000 fine if the perpetrator violates a judge’s order not to have animals.
 
SB 164 by Joe Simitian re: Endangered Species Tax Check-Off. Support.
  Extends the Rare and Endangered Species Program Tax Check-Off to 2018.
 
SB 425 by Ron Calderon re: Animal Fighting. Support.
  Establishes minimum fines for dog/cock fighting and allows for property forfeitures for cock fighting as is currently provided for dog fighting. SB 425 by Ron Calderon re: Animal Fighting. Support.
   
SB 426 by Ron Calderon re: Animal Fighting. Support.
  Allows eviction of tenants whose property is used for dog or cock fighting.
 
SB 769 by Jean Fuller re: Mountain Lions.  
  Allows exhibition of legally killed mountain lions for education or science.
 
AB 853 by Paul Fong and Jared Huffman re: Sharks. Oppose.
  Allow sales of stockpiles until July 2013 of shark fins possessed before January 2012.
 
SB 917 by Ted Lieu re: Cruelty and Animal Sales. Support.  
  Makes criminal penalties consistent (possible felonies) for animal abuse and prohibits sales of animals on streets, parking lots, highways, carnivals, and boardwalks.
 
VETOED
 
AB 1121 by Richard Pan re: Dog Licenses. Support.  
  Would have authorized animal control agencies to require puppies to be licensed. Requires breeders (selling 20 dogs or 3 litters per year), rescue groups, humane societies, and pet shops to monthly report adopters/buyers’ names to animal control to enforce licensing requirements.
 
SB 168 by Ellen Corbett re: Initiatives. Oppose.
  Would have prohibited signature gatherers from being paid per signature, making it more difficult for animal and other initiatives to qualify for the ballot.
 
SB 702 by Ted Lieu re: Microchips. Support.
  Would have required dogs/cats to be microchipped when adopted/reclaimed from animal control.
 
 
SB 752 by Tom Berryhill re: Hunting. Oppose.
  Would have required Fish and Game Dept, if requested by the licensee, to release contact information to hunting organizations when selling hunting licenses.
 
DEFEATED/DROPPED/POSTPONED (Many of these are expected to be brought up again in 2012)
 
AB 88 by Jared Huffman re: Salmon. Support.
  Requires labeling of genetically engineered salmon.
 
AB 610 by Jose Solorio re: Spay/Neuter License Plates. Support.  
  A pilot program to lower the number of license plate orders from the required 7,500 to 2,500 and allows private donations to the spay/neuter fund.  
 
AB 606 by Mike Gatto re: Hunting. Oppose.
  Requires the Fish and Game Dept to allow hunting and other “wildlife dependent activities” as a priority on land under the Wildlife Conservation Board.
   
AB 1046 by Bill Berryhill re: Hunting. Oppose.
  Prohibits Fish & Game Commission to ban hunting.
 
AB 1162 by Wes Chesbro re: Poaching. Support.
  Increases the maximum fine to $40,000 for poaching wildlife or using artificial light/bait for poaching trophy deer, elk, antelope, bighorn sheep.  Wild turkey fine is $2,000. Creates new crime of using “signal emitting device” when poaching bears to sell their parts (gall bladders) and fines them $10,000 per part.
 
AB 1279 by Nathan Fletcher re: Animal Shelters. Support.
  Amends existing law to replace “pound” with “animal shelter”, “destroy” to “euthanasia” of injured animals and “unwanted” to “surrendered.”
 
AB 1299 by Jared Huffman re: Fish. Support.
  Declares a policy of the state to conserve “forage fish” (herring, sardine, anchovy, squid, shrimp, plankton) upon whom marine life is dependent.
 
ACA 10 by Mike Gatto re: Initiatives. Oppose.
  Allows the Legislature to amend an initiative after it has passed into law.  
 
ACA 12 by Mike Gatto re: Initiatives. Oppose.
  Allows the Legislature to propose amendments to an initiative. If proponents agree with amendments, it will go on the ballot. If amendments are not accepted, they must be presented in the ballot materials.
 
SB 241 by Anthony Cannella re: Calif Environmental Quality Act. Oppose.
  Sidesteps the judicial review process provided in the Calif Environmental Quality Act.
 
 
SB 580 by Lois Wolk re: Parks. Support.
  Prohibits land acquired for state parks from being used or sold for non-park purposes.
 
SB 657 by Ted Gaines re: Suction Mining. Oppose.
  Repeals prohibition of equipment which sucks up river and creek bottoms for gold, killing fish and emitting mercury and noise affecting wildlife in riparian habitats
 
SB 697 by Bill Emmerson re: Veterinary Medicine. Oppose.
  Sets up procedure to penalize non-veterinarians for treating animals.
 
    Subscribe to Paw PAC’s legislative email alerts by emailing info@pawpac.org or call 510/222-2236.  Your donation (not tax-deductible) to Paw PAC by mail or paypal allows us to publish alerts and our annual Voting Charts, maintain our website www.pawpac.org, make endorsements, testify at hearings, distribute position papers, and host monthly legislative meetings in the Capitol Building to which all animal advocates are welcome.
 
Legislative List compiled by: Virginia Handley, 510/222-2236.

Consistent with sections 1801, 4181 and 4181.1 of the Fish and Game Code, the
purpose of this black bear policy is to minimize bear/human conflicts and damage
to private property while not significantly affecting California’s bear population.
This policy addresses situations where bears have entered residential areas and
the Department must respond.
The Department considers improper storage of human food and garbage to be
the primary cause of bear conflicts with humans. The reduction or elimination of
bear attractants is emphasized throughout this policy and in the “Keep Me Wild”
Program so that bears do not become habituated to human food and become
problem bears in the future. This policy is intended to reduce the number of
bear/human conflicts to the benefit of individual bears and people living near, or
recreating in, bear habitat.
Bears that are threats to public safety, as determined by a public safety officer or
Department employee, may be killed at any time without a permit. The specific
procedures for handling public safety bears are detailed in the Department’s
Public Safety Wildlife Policy. “Region” refers to one of seven Department regions
and “District” refers to one of four Department Law Enforcement Division (LED)
districts.
The policy is organized into five elements described in detail below:
I. Incident Response
A. Department regional or district personnel will attempt to respond to all
bear incidents, either by phone or in person. The type and level of
response should be consistent with the reported incident. The Department
employee or volunteer receiving the report of a bear incident is
responsible for ensuring that the incident is reported to an appropriate
supervisor or manager. Other than sworn officers, only those Department
personnel who have current certification in the Wildlife Investigations Lab
(WIL) Wildlife Restraint Course may respond onsite to a bear incident
unless specifically directed to do so by their chain-of-command or the onsite
Department incident commander. The incident commander’s
directives will be followed by all on-site employees.
B. The responding Department employee, under the authority of their
Regional Manager or Chief of Enforcement, or his/her designee, will verify
the validity of the complaint, determine the appropriate action, and if
necessary, start control measures and/or issue a depredation permit
pursuant to Section 401, Title 14, CCR.
C. Incident documentation will be completed by the region or district when
on-scene response to a bear call is necessary. This may include bear
incident reports, depredation permits and follow-up or recurrence reports.
Copies of this documentation shall be sent through the chain-of-command
to region and Wildlife Branch (WLB).
D. Under the conditions described in sections 4181 and/or 4181.1 of the Fish
and Game Code, black bears that have damaged private property may be
killed by the property owner or an agent. A depredation permit is not to be
issued to kill a bear that is designated a public safety bear.
E. The procedures for disposing of a bear taken under a depredation permit
will be described in the permit prior to killing the bear. A Department
employee will be responsible for disposal of, or to verify disposal of, such
bear.
F. Bears that stray into areas where human/bear conflicts are anticipated,
and are not habituated to humans may at the Department’s discretion, be
captured and moved to the nearest suitable habitat in a safe and
expedient manner.
G. Bears that are determined to be habituated to humans are not candidates
for moving. If such bears do not return to the wild on their own, the
Department may attempt to capture the bear so that it may either be
humanely euthanized or placed with a permitted animal care facility. A
decision to capture a bear shall be made by the onsite field staff after
consultation with the chain-of-command and with the WIL.
II. Response Categories and Remedial Actions
Following are the Department’s three categories with examples, for responding to
reported bear problems:
Category 1 – (“No Harm- No Foul bear”) A non-habituated bear has strayed into
a populated area and does not return to bear habitat. In most situations, removal
of the attractants from the area will cause the bear to return to wild habitat and
only phone contact with the reporting party will be necessary. Site response is
only necessary in cases where a bear does not leave, or if other knowledge
indicates that either the safety of the bear or the public is compromised.
Techniques to cause (haze) the bear to leave may include, but are not limited to
the use of non-lethal projectiles (e.g. rubber slug shot shells or sling shot
projectiles) to drive the bear away and/or “bear” dogs to chase and haze the bear
out of the area. Unless otherwise specified by a supervisor, a Department
employee shall accompany any persons using dogs to chase or haze bears.
Tranquilizing and removing the bear can be used if other methods are
determined to be unsafe or have been unsuccessful.
Category 2 – (Habituated bear) A bear has become habituated to humans and
may be a nuisance problem (no property damage involved) by tipping over
garbage cans, invading compost piles, walking across porches, etc. Bears that
have been previously captured and removed, but return to areas of human
habitation are included in this category. The responder should continue to
recommend reasonable corrective measures as a long-term solution to the
problem. Reasonable corrective measures include, but are not limited to area
clean-up, removal of trash or other food attractants, bear-proofing food storage
areas, electric fencing, temporary closure of campsites, and/or the techniques
listed in Category 1 above. Habituated bears are not candidates for moving and
shall either be humanely euthanized or placed with a permitted animal care
facility upon failure of the corrective measures.
Category 3 – (Depredation bear) A bear has caused real property damage to
dwellings, structures, vehicles, apiaries, other man-made objects. If the damage
is minor and there are no other previous reports of damage, the implementation
of reasonable corrective measures to remove the attractants as outlined for
Category 2 bears should be followed. If the situation worsens or damage is
considered substantial in the opinion of the responder, corrective measures shall
be made prior to, or in addition to, issuing a depredation permit pursuant to Fish
and Game Code Section 4181. In cases where a bear has caused extensive
and/or chronic damage to private property, such as injured or killed livestock,
entered into an unoccupied home or cabin, or repeated damage where corrective
or bear-proofing efforts have failed, the Department shall issue a depredation
permit, if the property owner requests one. If the property owner does not want a
depredation permit, the Department shall continue to advise on measures which
need to be taken to prevent further property damage.
As provided for in Section 4181.1 of the Fish and Game Code, landowners or
their employees may kill a bear encountered in the act of molesting or injuring
livestock as long as this taking is reported to the Department by the next working
day. The carcass must be made available to the Department. After investigation,
an after-the-fact depredation permit can be issued.
III. Relocation, Removal, Trapping or Hazing of Bears
Relocation in this policy is defined as the capture and release of a bear at
least 20 air miles from the capture site. Category 1 bears may also be
returned to their immediate habitat, which may be less than 20 miles.
A. Trapping and relocating black bears is an option in unusual situations.
Black bears shall only be relocated with the prior approval of the Wildlife
Branch Chief or his/her designee.
B. Only Department personnel are authorized to capture and relocate black
bears. Personnel from federal, State and/or local agencies, nongovernment
organizations, or the public may not capture and relocate
bears unless specific authorization for relocating black bears is contained
in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Director of the
Department and the appropriate agency or entity. Any such MOU shall
include directions for coordination of all trapping efforts on an incident-byincident
basis.
C. All relocated bears that are chemically immobilized shall be ear tagged in
accordance with Section 4190 of the Fish and Game Code. Any bear
needing to be chemically immobilized shall be handled in accordance with
the WIL’s “Administering Pharmaceuticals to Wildlife” instructions. Special
procedures for handling and tagging bears within 14 days prior to or
during any bear hunting season are included in those instructions and
shall be adhered to prior to the release of any bear during this timeframe.
Captured bears being returned to their immediate habitat or bears that are
relocated should be tagged when possible. If tagging equipment is not
available and immediate release or relocation is necessary, the bear
should be marked in some manner for future identification. Any tags
recovered from bears taken under permit, or otherwise taken, shall be
forwarded to WLB with any permits or other written documentation on the
animal.
D. Prior to trapping a black bear for relocation purposes, a release site shall
be approved by the regional manager or his/her designee. Release sites
may be predesignated by the regional manager. The appropriate land
management agency shall be notified of the release site(s) and the date
and time of bear release(s). No bear shall be transported out of the State
without the authorization of the Wildlife Branch Chief or his/her designee.
IV. Orphaned and Injured Bears
A. On occasion, black bear cubs may be found orphaned or have been
picked up and perceived orphaned. If, in the judgment of the responding
Department employee, the cub(s) appear independent they should be left
alone or hazed/moved back to natural habitat.
B. Except as provided for category 1, 2 and 3 situations listed above, bears
should never be handled. In the case of injured bears, responding
personnel should assess injuries and euthanize any bear with injuries that
would prevent it from surviving in the wild.
V. Orphaned Black Bear Cub Rehabilitation and Permanent Placement
The following will inform Department personnel in implementing the policy as it
relates to rehabilitation of orphaned cubs to be released into the wild or
placement in a facility.
If at all possible, bear cubs should be allowed to return to the wild on their own or
through hazing before a decision to capture them is made. Department personnel
shall use the decision tree (Figure 1), to guide onsite actions for bear cubs. Cubs
may be eligible for rehabilitation and release into the wild only if provisions have
been made for the capture, transportation, care, and release of the animal before
the cub is placed in captivity. Provisions are to include method of transport,
timing of release, and financial resources for the capture, care and release of the
animal, including Department costs. Approval from the Wildlife Investigations Lab
supervisor (or his/her designee) is required prior to allowing an animal care
facility to possess and/or rehabilitate a bear. For the purposes of this policy, a
cub is defined as a bear weighing less than 50 pounds.
Selection Criteria – Cubs of the year may be candidates for rehabilitation if the
following conditions are met:
1. There is agreement among Department personnel in the region or district,
the statewide bear coordinator, and the Wildlife Investigations Lab (WIL)
supervisor (or their designees) that a given cub is suitable for
rehabilitation. If agreement is not reached, the decision about whether a
cub is suitable for rehabilitation will be made by the WIL supervisor.
2. Orphaned cubs encountered before August 1, or obviously dependent on
the sow if after August 1.
3. Orphaned cubs that have had little or no contact with humans and are not
imprinted on humans or reliant on humans for food.
Procedure -
4. Orphaned cubs that are candidates for rehabilitation will be transported in
a secure container as quickly as possible to the rehabilitation facility where
they will be held in secure confinement. Cubs will be kept in a quiet place
with little or no human contact. The cub(s) will be given adequate food and
water. All rehabilitation bear cubs shall be ear-tagged by the rehabilitating
facility prior to transportation for release into the wild. Marking of bear
cubs is required by Section 4190 of the Fish and Game Code.
5. Release of rehabilitated cub(s) requires placing the animal(s) in natural or
artificially constructed dens during the most appropriate time of late fall or
winter. Den sites should not be disturbed after the cub(s) is placed in the
den. Rehabilitated cubs should be released in suitable habitat (near snow
line is preferred) within 75 miles of the site where they were originally
captured. The release site shall be coordinated with the land management
agency or landowner. The release of a rehabilitated cub shall be
supervised by Department personnel who should be prepared to address
questions from the news media. Den sites should not be disturbed after
the cub(s) is placed in the den.
6. Cubs that do not meet the criteria for rehabilitation will be permanently
placed with a permitted facility after considering the welfare of the bear
cub, the benefits to the public of the State of California, and the availability
of Department-permitted facilities willing to accept a cub. Temporary
holding facilities may be authorized to care for the cub until placement is
determined. Placement of bear cubs for rehabilitation and for permanent
placement will be the responsibility of the Department’s Wildlife
Rehabilitation Coordinator and under the direction of the Wildlife
Investigation Lab supervisor, or designee.
7. The selection of a facility (whether for rehabilitation or for placement) will
give priority to the nearest facility to the area that the cub is from, provided
that facility is prepared to take the cub; or, in order, the next closest facility
that is willing to take the animal until placement is made.

Consistent with sections 1801, 4181 and 4181.1 of the Fish and Game Code, the goal of the statewide black bear policy is to minimize damage to private property, without posing a threat to local bear populations. This policy is intended to address situations where bears have entered residential areas and to minimize bear/human conflicts. Bears which are threats to public safety, as determined by a public safety officer or Department employee, may be killed at any time without a permit. The specific procedures for handling public safety bears are detailed in the Department’s “Wildlife Safety Policy.”
The Department recognizes that attractants such as improperly stored human foods and garbage are the primary factors leading to bear/human conflicts. The reduction or elimination of bear attractants is therefore emphasized throughout this policy so that bears do not become habituated to human food and become problem bears in the future. Department employees should encourage the use of public information to reduce the problems. This policy is intended to reduce the number of bear/human conflicts to the benefit of individual bears and people living or recreating in bear habitat.
I. Incident Response
A. Regional personnel will attempt to respond to all bear incidents, either by phone or in person. The type and level of response should be consistent with the reported incident. The Department employee receiving the report of a bear incident is responsible for insuring that the incident is reported to an appropriate Department employee. Personnel responding to bear incidents should initiate the incident command system, if the incident requires a coordinated physical response. This shall include notifying public land managers, if applicable.
B. The responsible Department employee, under the authority of the regional manager or his/her designee, will verify the validity of the complaint, determine the appropriate action, and if necessary, start control measures and/or issue a depredation permit pursuant to Section 401, Title 14, CCR.
C. Incident documentation will be made by the responding person when it is necessary to visit the site of a bear call. This includes filling out a Wildlife Incident Report Form (WIRF), and/or depredation permits and follow-up or recurrence reports, if necessary. Copies of this documentation shall be sent through the chain of command to region and Wildlife Programs Branch (WPB).
D. Under the conditions described in sections 4181 and/or 4181.1 of the Fish and Game Code, black bears that have damaged private property may be killed by the property owner or an agent (See II B and C). A depredation permit is not to be issued to kill a bear for public safety purposes. The procedures for disposing of bear taken under depredation permit will be determined prior to killing the bear. A Department employee will be responsible for disposal of, or to verify disposal of such bear.
E. Individual bears which stray into residential areas, or similar situations where human/bear conflicts are anticipated, may be moved to the nearest suitable habitat in the safest and most expedient manner. Bears which have become habituated to humans or human settlements are not good candidates for moving. Removals will not be considered relocation for the purposes of this policy, since the purpose is to return such bears to the area they already inhabited.
F. Wildlife interests will be given priority over private interests on public lands.
II. Response Categories and Remedial Actions
A. Category 1 – A bear has strayed into a populated area and cannot readily return to bear habitat. In most situations, removal of the antagonists or distractions from the area will allow the bear to return to appropriate habitat and only phone contact will be necessary. Site response will only be necessary in cases where a bear does not leave or other factors indicate that either the safety of the bear or public are compromised. Department employees or law enforcement officers may use hazing techniques in an attempt to remove the bear. These techniques may include, but are not limited to the use of “bear busters” (rubber slug shot shells), bean bag rounds, whistling and flashing rounds, or sling shot projectiles in an attempt to drive the bear away and/or “bear” dogs in an attempt to chase and haze the bear out of the area. Unless otherwise specified by a supervisor, a Department employee will accompany any persons using dogs to chase or haze bears. Tranquilizing and removing the bear can be used if other methods are determined to be unsafe or have been unsuccessful.
B. Category 2 – A bear has become habituated to humans and may be a nuisance problem (no property damage involved) by tipping over garbage cans, invading compost piles, walking across porches, etc. Bears which have been previously captured and have returned to areas of human habitation are included in this category. The investigator should recommend reasonable corrective measures as a solution to the problem. Reasonable corrective measures shall include, but are not limited to: area clean-up, removal of trash or other food attractants, bear-proofing food storage areas, electric fencing, temporary closure of campsites, and/or the hazing techniques listed in Category 1 above.
C. Category 3 – A bear has caused real property damage to a dwelling(s), structure(s), vehicle(s), apiaries, etc., or is a repeat offender (the bear has been previously captured or hazed by Department employees). If the damage is minor and there are no other previous reports of damage – the first action should be the implementation of reasonable corrective measures and hazing techniques to remove the attractants as outlined for Category 2 bears. As the situation dictates, corrective measures shall be made prior to, or in addition to, issuing a depredation permit. In those cases where a bear has caused extensive and/or chronic damage to private property, such as livestock killed and/or injured, entries into a home(s) or cabin(s), repeated damage where corrective or bear-proofing efforts have failed, etc., the corrective action should be the issuance of a depredation permit. When issuing a depredation permit in areas of high human density, the method of taking the bear must consider public safety.

As provided for in Section 4181.1 of the Fish and Game Code, land owners may kill a bear encountered in the act of molesting or injuring livestock as long as this taking is reported to the Department by the next working day. The carcass also must be made available for inspection. After investigation an after the fact depredation permit can be issued.
III. Guidelines for Relocation, Removal, Trapping or Hazing of Bears
A. For the purposes of this policy, relocation is defined as the capture and movement of a bear at least 20 air miles, and preferably over 75 miles, from the capture site.
B. Trapping and relocating black bears should only be considered as an option in the most UNIQUE situations. Black bears shall only be relocated with the prior permission of the Deputy Director or his/her designee.
C. Only Department personnel are authorized to capture and relocate black bears. Personnel from federal, State and/or local agencies may not capture and relocate bears unless specific authorization for relocating black bears is contained in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Director of the Department and the appropriate agency. Any such MOU shall include directions for coordination of all trapping efforts on an incident-by-incident basis.
D. Any bear that is trapped and handled by the Department should be ear tagged prior to reintroduction to the wild. All “relocated” bears shall be ear tagged in accordance with Section 4190 of the Fish and Game Code and an Animal Immobilization Form, including the ear tag number, shall be completed for each captured bear. The immobilization form (or a copy) shall be forwarded to WPB. Captured bears being returned to their immediate habitat (not relocated) should be tagged when possible, however, if tagging equipment is not available and immediate release is necessary, the bear should be marked in some manner for future identification. Any tags recovered from bears taken under permit, or otherwise taken, shall be forwarded to WPB with any permits or other report.
E. Prior to trapping a black bear for relocation purposes, a release site shall be approved by the regional manager, or his/her designee. Release sites may be pre-designated by the regional manager and the appropriate land management agency will be notified of the release sites. No bear shall be transported out of the State without the authorization of a deputy director (or his/her designee).
F. A depredation permit may be issued for any bear that has been relocated and subsequently meets the criteria of a Category 2.
IV. Orphaned, Sick and Injured bears
A. On rare occasions, black bear cubs may be found orphaned. These animals are eligible for rehabilitation only if they appear healthy, are of a good body weight for their age, blood work confirms they are in good condition, and provisions have been made for the capture, transportation, care, and release of the animal before the cub is placed in captivity. Provisions are to include method of transport, timing of release, and financial resources for the capture, care and release of the animal, including Department costs. Regional Manager (or his/her designee) approval is required prior to allowing an animal care facility to “rehabilitate” a bear. For the purposes of this policy, a cub is defined as a bear weighing less than 50 pounds.
B. Except as provided for category 1, 2 and 3 situations listed above, bears should never be handled. In the case of injured or sick bears, responding personnel should assess injuries and condition and euthanize any bear with injuries/illness that may prevent it from surviving in the wild.
C. Injured or sick bears should not be captured, treated and released. Exceptions to this will be made by the veterinary staff of the WIL.

V. Orphaned Black Bear Cub Rehabilitation Guidelines
The following guidelines should be used to assist personnel in implementing the Black Bear Depredation Policy as it relates to rehabilitation of orphaned cubs
Selection Criteria – Cubs of the year may be candidates for rehabilitation if the following conditions are met:
1. There is a consensus between Department personnel in the region and the Wildlife Investigations Lab (WIL) Supervisor or his designee that a given cub is suitable for rehabilitation.
2. If consensus is not reached, the final decision about whether a cub meets these criteria will be made by the WIL Supervisor.
3. Orphaned cubs are encountered before August 1, when cubs are about six months old. After August 1, cubs of the year are usually capable of surviving on their own and should be evaluated as candidates for rehabilitation on a case-by-case basis. Cubs must be healthy and of normal body weight for their age.
4. Orphaned cubs have had little or no contact with humans. This means that the cubs have not imprinted on humans.
Procedure-
Unless the WIL otherwise allows, all orphaned cubs which are candidates for rehabilitation shall be transported to the WIL, the animals should be held in a secure container and kept in a quiet place with little or no human contact. The cub(s) should be given food and water as appropriate. It is unlawful for the public to pick up and possess wildlife (sections 2000 and 2002, Fish and Game Code).
All rehabilitated orphaned bear cubs shall be ear tagged by the rehabilitating facility prior to transportation for release into the wild. Marking of bear cubs is required by Section 4190 of the Fish and Game Code.
Rehabilitated cubs should be released in suitable habitat (near snow line is preferred) within 75 miles of the site where they were originally captured. The release site shall be coordinated with the land management agency. Release of rehabilitated orphaned cub(s) requires placing the animal(s) in natural or artificially constructed dens during the most appropriate time of late fall or winter. Den sites should not be disturbed after the cub(s) is placed in the den.
The release of a rehabilitated cub shall be supervised by Department personnel who should be prepared to address questions from the news media.

If chickens are to be raised in the Ojai Valley, it is incumbent upon people to build a bear proof chicken coop. Basically that requires heavier grade chain link fencing around the perimeter and on top along with cinder blocks in the ground around the perimeter. Any hen house should be well within the fencing. If you need more advice or help constructing a bear proof chicken coop please call us.

There is also a real problem with bears getting into garbage cans in the east end. Bear proof cans are available and there are other ways to discourage bears’ interest in human garbage. This problem needs to promptly be dealt with or there will be more bears needlessly killed in Ojai.

Many others are also raising the question of the wisdom of allowing untrained hunters to shoot in such close proximity to other homes and the street. DFG isn’t clear if the resident who wounded the bear had a hunting permit which would have required proper training in the use of firearms. Even a live bullet shot into the air could kill someone in such a populated area. This is why OWL advocates the use of non lethal shot, paintball guns, slingshots, starter pistols, etc. These are extremely effective. And because not everyone would want to do that, we will volunteer to step in to help.

So if you are being bothered by bears for any reason, please call us. We have information, training and experience in bear aversion and we would be very happy to work with you.

Sue Williamson, coordinator of OWL

Ojai Wildlife League (OWL) members Suza Francina and Sholom Joshua addressed the Casitas Municipal Water District Board of Directors at their February 9 and March 9 meetings.

We reported observations made by residents who regularly walk the lake area. Several people told us that after the new fence was erected they saw no deer or coyotes in places were they previously sighted them on a regular basis.

We stated that the Board has a responsibility to monitor the impact of the fence and report their findings to the public.

We emphasized that the real impact of the fence will not be known until hot weather hits. It is during the driest summer months that there are also the highest number of people using the lake. We need to remember that increased numbers of people makes it even more difficult for animals to find ways to get water.

In February, Sholom Johua spoke with Jack Collins, our contact in the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) South-Central California Area office. Mr. Collins advised us to send a letter by regular mail to Michael Jackson, Area Manager, and Cheryl Carter, Lands Supervisor.

On February 22, 2011, the Ojai Wildlife League sent the Letter below by certified mail to the aforementioned persons.

Due to the nature of the letter, it is our understanding that by law they are required to respond.

On May 13, 2011, we sent a follow-up letter to the aforementioned persons, requesting a response to the Ojai Wildlife League’s letter of February 22, 2011.

A copy of the Letter follows here:

Mr. Michael Jackson, Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation
Cheryl Carter, Lands Supervisor, Bureau of Reclamation

February 22, 2011
Dear Michael Jackson,
This letter is a request by the Ojai Wildlife League (OWL) for a permit review of the Lake Casitas fence project.
The new fence was erected in November, 2010. It is one-mile long, located next to Santa Ana Road, on the northern side of the lake.
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) gave approval for the construction in September, 2010, following submission of a Categorical Exclusion Checklist (CEC-10-69).
It is the position of OWL and numerous other concerned citizens living in the Ojai Valley/Ventura County area that BOR was given incomplete and misleading information in the CEC sent to you.
The new six-foot chain-link fence with three tiers of slanting barbed wire on top and no opening at the bottom, replaces the original permeable barbed-wire fence built when Lake Casitas opened in 1960. The new fence connects to fences on either side, making a nearly impermeable barrier against deer and other wildlife, the entire length of Santa Ana Road.
Since May, 2010, OWL members and other local residents have informed Casitas Municipal Water District (CMWD) of concern over the negative impact of the fence on wildlife in the lake area. We have also communicated with BOR about our concerns in the months leading up to the fence’s construction.
OWL has made an extensive study of the fence on the ground, as well as researching all available pertinent records at the offices of CMWD. This includes the communications on the matter between CMWD and BOR.
The Casitas Lake area is pastoral open space with hundreds of deer and other wildlife dependent on the lake water supply. The lake is a sanctuary for wildlife with animals coming down from the hills, crossing the road and, up until November 2010, going through or over the original fence to get to the water.
The essential problem with the new fence is that it prevents wildlife from reaching the lake for a drink of water. Due to its favorable topography, herds of deer are mostly on the side of the lake across from Santa Ana Road. The other three sides of the lake are natural barriers to the lake and not many deer are seen in those areas.
The lands that surround the lake are BOR lands. From the time the lake was formed, BOR has said that one of its priorities was to protect the wildlife in the area. Wildlife needs your protection now.
Prior to the fence going up, deer were regularly seen at the lake. OWL members who visit the lake report that there have been no sightings of deer and other large wildlife since the advent of the fence. OWL receives ongoing reports on wildlife at the lake.
Please note also that instead of spreading out the nightly animal migration to the lake, this new barrier attempts to funnel all of the wildlife into a handful of small inadequate openings. This includes deer, foxes, coyotes, bears, skunks, raccoons, road runners, opossums, squirrels, rabbits, wild boar, feral pigs, feral cats, bobcats and mountain lions, some with their offspring following along.
Santa Ana Road is a busy artery, especially on weekends. Wildlife looking for openings in a fence this close to the road have a much greater chance of being killed or injured and causing vehicle accidents and injury to humans.
In its CEC, The Casitas Municipal Water District states, “In some areas where the existing barbed-wire fencing is still functional across drainages and high points, the barbed-wire fencing would be left in place in order to facilitate animal passage.”
The problem with this plan is that large animals cannot cross at these so called passages. This is apparent to everyone who has actually seen the fence as it traverses the lake’s northern shore. Most of these spots have sharp downward slopes with the fence built at the bottom of those slopes. As for the crossings at high points mentioned in the CEC, these are utterly unusable by wildlife. These high points are actually hillsides cut to accommodate Santa Ana Road. The result is a very steep vertical incline.
Bear and other animals that climb fences cannot climb over the barbed wire on top of the new chain-link fence without severely injuring themselves.
The original fence stood approximately four feet high, allowing for deer and other animals to work their way over or through. It was also a proven deterrent to children wandering off.
The fence itself is a sorry sight. It is more apropos of a correctional institution than a natural recreational area. The idea that this prison-like fence will protect the water quality of the lake is misplaced logic. Since anyone can reach the lake by driving or walking (at no charge) through the main entrance, there is no practical way to prevent someone bent on doing damage from having the opportunity.
OWL is appealing to BOR to intervene and return the lake to its original status as a wildlife friendly resource.
It is cruel to deny animals access to life giving water. Hot dry weather will arrive in a few months and local creeks and other sources of drinking water for animals will dry up. There is additional concern as this Southern California area has a history of wildfires. Access to the lake is critical for wildlife survival.

Sincerely,
Sholom Joshua, Founding member, Ojai Wildlife League
Suza Francina, Founding member, Ojai Wildlife League, Former Mayor, City of Ojai
Sue Williamson, Founding member, Ojai Wildlife League

Here is a link to BOR’s reply to OWL’s letter of February 22, 2011. http://www.box.net/shared/gaz6gfsyqgfjmvcc9bey

Note: We are having trouble posting a link to the BOR Letter which is a PDF file. If above link does not work, please email Sfrancina@aol.com and we will forward you a copy.

New link to BOR Letter: http://www.box.net/shared/8t0rjjpeknrpqqieomsi
(Copy and paste into your browser)
In our opinion, this recent Letter from BOR did not adequately address the concerns stated in OWL’s Letter and provided no new information.

OWL’s response to follow.

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/public/information/submitcomments.asp

Let’s not allow the CA F&G Commission to make the bears pay for our human expansion and ignorance.
Write them today!

To a wild animal there is a world of difference between the current open barbed-wire fence and a six-foot chain link fence topped with barbed wire.

In spite of the protests of the Ojai Wildlife League and other citizens since last May, the California Bureau of Reclamation has approved the Casitas Municipal Water District’s request for a mile long six-foot high chain-link fence topped with three strands of barbed wire.

According to the “Categorical Exclusion Checklist” report, the proposed chain-link fence will replace the existing barbed-wire fencing, that was built when Lake Casitas opened in 1960. It is expected to cost $140,000 and will be erected along the current fence line around the northeast border of the Lake Casitas Recreation Area, along Santa Ana Road.

The new fence is being characterized as no more than a replacement of the original. The “Categorical Exclusion” report states that “In general, the new fence would take up the same footprint as the existing barbed wire fencing…”

It is our opinion that the process used to come to this conclusion is flawed. To a wild animal there is a world of difference between the current open barbed-wire fence and a six-foot chain link fence topped with barbed wire.

The Casitas Lake area is pastoral open space with hundreds of deer and other wildlife dependent on the Lake Casitas water supply, especially during the hot summer months. The lake is a sanctuary for wildlife. Residents who walk this area early in the morning have observed many animals coming down from the hills, crossing the road and going through the existing fence to get to the water.

The Ojai Wildlife League (OWL) is concerned that if animals cannot get through the proposed chain-link fence using existing wildlife corridors, that they will be in serious trouble.

Along with other members of OWL I walked the fence line with a map of the new plan in hand. Unlike the proposed chain-link fence, the current fence is low enough and has openings so that wildlife coming down from the hills across from Santa Ana road can go under, over and even in between the strands of the fence to get to the lake to drink.

The public has been told that eleven sections of the new fence (about 20% of its length) will consist of the original barbed wire. According to the report: “In some areas where the existing barbed-wire fencing is still functional across drainages and high points, the barbed-wire fencing would be left in place in order to facilitate animal passage.”

As I and the other OWL members walked the area, we tried to visualize how animals coming down from the hills would find their way to these openings in order to have access to the lake.

A biologist and longtime resident in the area who has spent many years observing animals cross Santa Ana Road pointed out that deer prefer to jump in areas that are level with the road on both sides of the fence, not across drainages and high points.

Wildlife looking for openings in a fence this close to the road have a much greater chance of being killed or injured and causing vehicle accidents and injury to humans.

Public Safety Concerns
The rationale that the public has been given for this new fence is that there is a need for security for the public water supply. In addition, the threat of the invasive Quagga mussel is still present, and the perimeter of the lake needs to be protected from illegal boat entry.

It is the position of the Ojai Wildlife League (OWL) that there are other ways to address these issues, that allow animals safe passage to drink from the lake. These alternatives include the use of more wildlife friendly permeable fencing, more of the existing wooden posts around the lake that prevent boats from entering illegally, more signs with stiff fines for illegal boat entry, etc.,

All across the country fences create barriers and traps for wildlife, from large animals to birds, causing injuries and often slow, painful deaths.

A guide entitled “How to Build A Fence With Wildlife in Mind,” explains that even when animals do clear fences or crawl underneath or through them they often bear countless scars from wire strands. Saddest of all, some fences are barriers to fawns and calves, even if adults can jump over. Separated from their mothers, the youngsters curl up and die of starvation, stranded and unable to follow the herd.

It is not possible to protect every source of drinking water by surrounding it with a fence. This would include every river and stream if those watercourses eventually ran into lakes and reservoirs. All of the Ventura River, Coyote Creek and the North Fork of Matilija Creek would need to be fenced off. Santa Ana Creek and North Fork Coyote Creek also flow into the lake.

The irony is that even with the proposed new fence trespassers can still enter through the spaces allowed for animal passage. And even barbed wire topped chain-link fences can be rendered useless with a pair of heavy-duty bolt cutters.

If the fence is supposed to be for the security of our drinking water one wonders how a fence is going to stop an airdrop of some massive quantity of poison in the middle of the night, or other clandestine activity?

How is a fence going to stop a terrorist from paying his $10 entry fee, driving a van to some easily accessible piece of shoreline, and discharging some substance into the lake in broad daylight?

It is impossible to make our water supply completely safe, even if we had airport like security at the Casitas gate entrance! There are too many points of entry and they can’t all be protected.

In addition to these concerns, there is the issue of safety. This fence is right along a main artery to the lake and sees lots of traffic, especially during weekends, holidays and special events.

The fence is located between speeding car traffic and the lake, with wildlife caught in the middle. What happens when a herd of deer that is accustomed to jumping the old fence is faced with this new higher chain-link barbed wire topped fence?

Do we fully understand the safety issues both for humans driving by the fence, especially at night, and the consequences of forcing different kinds of animals to share small openings to access water?

Instead of spreading out the nightly animal migration to the lake, this fence would be funneling all of the wildlife into a handful of small openings.

Wildlife corridors are miles wide, not a few feet wide. Some of the openings in the proposed fence are in brush filled barancas that deer do not usually push their way through. Deer usually stay in open areas where they can jump and flee from predators. The other three sides of the lake are not only heavily brushed they are mostly upslope and steep terrain.

There will be many different kinds of wildlife traffic funneled into these small openings: deer, foxes, coyotes, bears, skunks, raccoons, road runners, opossums, squirrels, wild cats, feral cats, feral pigs and mountain lions, some with their offspring following along.

This chain-link fence creates a situation that forces animals into small openings on a road where people often travel over 50 mph, slowing down at the curves or the natural inclines of the road. On a moon-lit night drivers tend to look at the lake and are often not giving the road their full attention. This could translate into accidents on a road that has no lighting at night.

OWL has contacted CMWD Board Members, public officials, wildlife biologists and other experts to express their concerns about the impact of this chain link fence.
If there must be a new fence, OWL is advocating permeable fencing rather than chain link and recommends that the Board reconsider its decision and adopt this more animal friendly type of fencing.

The proposed chain-link barbed wire topped fence is slated for construction in mid November. There is only a very small window of time to voice our objections and ask the CMWD Board and those who have jurisdiction over the Board to reconsider this decision..

The Ojai Valley is known as a community that protects open space and respects wildlife. Lake Casitas is visited every year by wildlife enthusiasts and educators from all over Ventura County and beyond. It should be a model for coexistence between humans and animals.

The consequences of this proposed chain ink fence in this open space watershed will be devastating for years to come.

It is not too late to call the Bureau and Casitas Water board members and express your concerns about the proposed chain-link fence.

Here’s the link for the Casitas Board info.:

http://www.casitaswater.org/lower.php?url=board-of-directors

richhandley@yahoo.com
Richard Handley

reygacho@netzero.net
Russ Baggerly

prefkaiser@earthlink.net
Pete Kaiser

hicki@aol.com
Bill Hicks

anjword@sbcglobal.net
Jim Word

Suza Francina is a former mayor of Ojai and a founding member of the Ojai Wildlife League.

The California Department of Fish & Game is studying a proposed plan to close 19 California State Game Refuges, and open them up to hunting. The deadline for public comments on this plan is December 1, 2010. Go to the DFG web site http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/gamerefuges/ . The DFG focuses on the additional “hunting opportunities” that this plan will provide to those that wish to kill game such as deer, bear, coyote, and grey foxes. What they do not address is the impact that opening these refuges to hunting will have on threatened wildlife. They contended that the “Elimination of the “State Game Refuge” designation will have no significant impact on the wildlife and ecosystems of these lands.”

Study the maps provided on the web site. Many of these refuges appear to be located in prime wildlife habitat. Besides animals that are listed as game and varmits, these State Game Refuges provide sanctuary to wild animals like the threatened;

Pacific fisher (Maries pennanti pacifica) Status: (CSSC) California species of special concern; (FC) Federal candidate for listing by Endangered Species Act (ESA); (FSS) Region 5 Forest Service sensitive species.

A victim of the current political climate in Washington DC, his listing as Endangered by the ESA is stalled. http://kswild.org/programs/biodiversity/species-profiles/pacfisher

California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) Status: (FSS) Region 5 Forest Service sensitive species; (ST) State threatened;
(SP) State fully protected

This guy needs a date. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/03/calif-wolverine-looks-in-vain-for-a-mate-nearest-is-800-miles-away/1

American marten (Maries Americana) Status: (FSS) Region 5 Forest Service sensitive species; (CSSC) California species of special concern; (MIS) Forest Service management indicator species.

Don’t underestimate cute. http://www.nature.org/animals/mammals/animals/marten.html

Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) listed as a State Threatened but not Federally Endangered species

All these animals are highly susceptible to canine parvo and distemper http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/09/supposedly-extinct-red-fox-discovered-in-yosemite-national-park.html

By law these species are technically protected from hunting. Unfortunately, the dogs that are unleashed to chase and attack “game animals” do not always read the hunting regulations. These rare and endangered animals will be devastated by the inevitable “incidental take” from the packs of hunting hounds. To learn more about hound hunting visit: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/multimedia/?fr_story=e2cc7ec09cf7087516729123499176973dd66a09

We need facts and documentation of the natural resources that are on these currently protected lands. I am asking “boots on the ground” environmentalists to study these refuges and to submit comments directly to the Department of Fish & Game, and to assist our legal staff in making our augments to defend California’s wildlife, and provide them with a sustainable and resilient habitat.

Sincerely, – Richard J. Garcia
CNRCC – Black Bear Task Force – Chair
DFG invites input – from their web site;
If you would like to provide input on the State Game Refuges, you may do so by taking this short survey or by sending your comments via email to wildlifestrategy@dfg.ca.gov. Comments must be sent by December 1, 2010.

ALSO:

LET YOUR LOCAL CASITAS WATER BOARD KNOW YOUR FEELINGS:
Rich Handley
Russ Baggerly
Peter Kaiser