Hunting: commercial hunting clubs.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 904 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 904.
You're tracking SB 904
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 904 — Hunting: commercial hunting clubs.
Last action — From Assembly without further action.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
Existing law provides that a person in possession or control of property on or with respect to which a fee for the privilege of taking birds or mammals is imposed or collected, or on or with respect to which a fee for any type of entry or use permit that includes the privilege of taking birds or mammals on the property is imposed or collected, is maintaining a commercial hunting club if birds or mammals are taken on the property, and requires a person to procure a "commercial hunting club license" from the Department of Fish and Game before birds or mammals are taken. Existing law authorizes the department to issue a license to any person upon submission of a completed application and payment of a fee, in accordance with a fee schedule based on the number of properties used by the club, including a $1,000 fee for 6 to 10, inclusive, properties and a $2,000 fee for 11 or more properties. This bill would delete the fee category for 11 or more properties, and would revise the $1,000 fee category to apply to 6 or more properties.
Bill Text
- Amended 04/06/10 - Amended Senate Current pdf April 06, 2010
- Introduced 01/27/10 - Introduced pdf January 27, 2010
- SB904 View text html
Action History
-
From Assembly without further action.
-
Returned to Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).
-
Set, second hearing. Failed passage in committee.
-
Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee. Reconsideration granted.
-
To Com. on W.,P. & W.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 34. Noes 0. Page 3412.) To Assembly.
-
To Special Consent Calendar.
-
Read second time. To third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 3334.)
-
Set for hearing April 26.
-
Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 3002.)
-
Set for hearing March 23.
-
To Com. on N.R. & W.
-
From print. May be acted upon on or after February 27.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Hollingsworth · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 1 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Hollingsworth
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (121)
121 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 121 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 6 | 0 | 3 |
| Democratic | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 7 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 41% | 41% | 0% | 18% |
How each member voted (17)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Tom | — | Yea |
| Fletcher | — | Yea |
| Yamada | — | Nay |
| Bonnie | — | Nay |
| Lowenthal | — | Nay |
| Salas | — | Nay |
| De | — | Not Voting |
| La | — | Not Voting |
| Torre | — | Not Voting |
| Anderson | — | Yea |
| Blumenfield | — | Nay |
| Huffman | — | Nay |
| Fuller | — | Yea |
| Gatto | — | Yea |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Nay |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 11 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Total | 13 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 81% | 0% | 0% | 19% |
How each member voted (16)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Tom | — | Yea |
| Fletcher | — | Yea |
| Bonnie | — | Yea |
| Lowenthal | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| De | — | Not Voting |
| La | — | Not Voting |
| Torre | — | Not Voting |
| Huffman | — | Yea |
| Anderson | — | Yea |
| Blumenfield | — | Yea |
| Yamada | — | Yea |
| Fuller | — | Yea |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 6 | 0 | 3 |
| Democratic | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 7 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 38% | 44% | 0% | 19% |
How each member voted (16)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Tom | — | Yea |
| Fletcher | — | Yea |
| Bonnie | — | Nay |
| Lowenthal | — | Nay |
| Salas | — | Nay |
| De | — | Not Voting |
| La | — | Not Voting |
| Torre | — | Not Voting |
| Fuller | — | Yea |
| Blumenfield | — | Nay |
| Anderson | — | Yea |
| Huffman | — | Nay |
| Yamada | — | Nay |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Nay |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 33 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 35 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| % of votes cast | 90% | 0% | 0% | 10% |
How each member voted (39)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Cedillo | — | Yea |
| Cogdill | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Ducheny | — | Yea |
| Dutton | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Yea |
| Lowenthal | — | Yea |
| Negrete | — | Yea |
| Runner | — | Yea |
| Harman | — | Yea |
| Huff | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| McLeod | — | Yea |
| Oropeza | — | Yea |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Wiggins | — | Not Voting |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Aanestad | — | Yea |
| Alquist | — | Not Voting |
| Ashburn | — | Yea |
| Hollingsworth | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Romero | — | Yea |
| Simitian | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Not Voting |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Wright | — | Yea |
| Correa | — | Yea |
| Cox | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Denham | — | Yea |
| Florez | — | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Strickland, Tony | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 82% | 0% | 0% | 18% |
How each member voted (11)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Not Voting |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Alquist | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Not Voting |
| Cox | — | Yea |
| Denham | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Lowenthal | — | Yea |
| Cogdill | — | Yea |
| Hollingsworth | — | Yea |
| Huff | — | Yea |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Simitian | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 904 do?
- Existing law provides that a person in possession or control of property on or with respect to which a fee for the privilege of taking birds or mammals is imposed or collected, or on or with respect to which a fee for any type of entry or use permit that includes the privilege of taking birds or mammals on the property is imposed or collected, is maintaining a commercial hunting club if birds or mammals are taken on the property, and requires a person to procure a "commercial hunting club license" from the Department of Fish and Game before birds or mammals are taken. Existing law authorizes the department to issue a license to any person upon submission of a completed application and payment of a fee, in accordance with a fee schedule based on the number of properties used by the club, including a $1,000 fee for 6 to 10, inclusive, properties and a $2,000 fee for 11 or more properties. This bill would delete the fee category for 11 or more properties, and would revise the $1,000 fee category to apply to 6 or more properties.
- Who sponsors SB 904?
- SB 904 is sponsored by Hollingsworth.
- What is the current status of SB 904?
- This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 904?
- Track SB 904 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 904
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 904
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →