1. Regulation Proposal for 671 Inspection of Facilities for Restricted Species 2005 - AB 820 established new laws in Fish and Game Code. Regulation package to Commission in summer 2011 - Redding Concern with fee structure and inspection process. Dept. went back and worked with Director’s Animal Advisory Committee to develop the current package The DFG fee package for inspections is being developed separately now as we learned that is under Department authority

2. Background Restricted species in California are typically exotic animals (big cats, primates, bird species, fish, reptiles, and amphibians), many potentially harmful to CA natural resources Possession, breeding, exhibiting of these species requires a permit and that permit requires inspection by DFG, or now, an ELE Are approximately 300 permittees in CA, ranging from people owning 1 animal, to biomedical research facilities, to the largest zoos Restricted species inspection fees will range from $220 to $2,990 depending on number of enclosures for animals

3. The Department proposal: The Department is responsible for conducting inspections. Except that, Biomedical research entities such as universities may apply for and become Eligible Local Entities (ELE’s is from statute). The ELE for medical research is authorized to inspect the facilities through an MOU with the Department. Eliminates veterinarians from being authorized to conduct inspections and allowing fee waivers. Eliminates the 10 day requirement to notify the Dept if an animal dies (except for the species considered most potentially dangerous)

4. Alternative that the Commission may consider: The Department is responsible for conducting inspections Biomedical facilities can operate through an ELE and MOU as with proposed Similar to the medical research opportunity, other restricted species permittees can similarly apply through a fairly rigorous process that involves the Animal Advisory Committee to be an ELE and operate through an MOU Pro’s for alternative: Fees lower than if DFG inspects; less involvement by DFG; less intrusive

5. Possible “Con” for alternative: Rigorous process; requires action (and work) from the all volunteer advisory committee; some permittees will not want adv. committee evaluating their permit; uncertain work load fo Department staff; compliance enforcement; no guarantee we will issue and ELE/MOU.

6. Concerns that have risen: Permittees opposed to elimination of veterinarian certification- DFG still responsible, incurs costs, collected no fees Statute indicates DFG or ELE inspect ZAA desires same exemption for non-detrimental species just as AZA is exempted. AZA is specifically exempted in code, no process or definitions for exempting other entities. For “justified reasons” is mentioned, but undefined.

7. Numerous DFG staff participated in developing this reg package over past 2 years: Enforcement- Mike Carion, Rob Allen Fisheries- Scott Barrow Licenses- Lori Heier, Maria Melchiorre Legal- David Kiene Wildlife- Nicole Carion, Steve Torres, Eric And: the Directors Animal Advisory Committee