AB 454 replaces and repeals the existing state provision governing migratory birds (Fish and Game Code Section 3513) to create a permanent prohibition on the taking or possession of migratory birds designated under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act before January 1, 2025, as well as any species subsequently designated at the federal level. The bill removes the prior temporal limits and the prior “nongame” qualifier and narrows the statutory exception that previously limited criminal liability.
Practically, the measure broadens the universe of protected birds under California law and expands the scope of criminal liability for taking or possessing those birds by narrowing exceptions. The bill declares an urgency and takes effect immediately, and it includes a statement that no state reimbursement to local agencies is required for the new state-mandated local program.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 454 repeals the prior Section 3513 and adds a new Section 3513 that makes it unlawful to take or possess migratory birds designated under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act before January 1, 2025, and any later-designated species, with limited exceptions. It removes the prior sunset and the “nongame” limitation and tightens the statutory exceptions that had narrowed criminal exposure.
Who It Affects
The bill directly affects anyone whose activities can result in taking or possession of migratory birds — including landowners, developers, energy operators, agricultural operators, and local law enforcement and prosecutors who enforce Fish and Game criminal provisions. Conservation organizations and wildlife managers will also be affected in how they plan protections, response, and compliance programs.
Why It Matters
By making state protections permanent and expanding criminal exposure, AB 454 changes regulatory risk calculations for industries with incidental bird impacts and shifts implementation burdens to state and local enforcement. It also aligns state reach with the federal list as of January 1, 2025 and captures any species added later at the federal level, creating a durable state-level overlay to federal protections.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 454 rewrites California’s short-lived Migratory Bird Protection Act into a standing state prohibition. Where the prior law operated with a sunset and applied only to “migratory nongame birds” designated at a past federal cutoff, the new Section 3513 removes that temporary status and covers any migratory bird on the federal list as of January 1, 2025 and any species added later.
The statute therefore makes state protection responsive to the federal list but without an automatic expiration date.
The bill narrows the statutory exception that previously limited criminal liability, which means more conduct that results in the taking or possession of a protected migratory bird could now be prosecuted under the Fish and Game Code. AB 454 does not itself create a new penalty schedule; it relies on existing criminal provisions in the Fish and Game Code to be the enforcement mechanism.
That makes criminal enforcement the default response to violations unless other administrative tools or permits apply.Because the law ties protection to the federal designations, future federal changes automatically affect which species California treats as protected under this section. The measure declares itself an urgency statute and asserts no state reimbursement obligation for local agencies, so the change is immediate and shifts any fiscal or enforcement impacts onto local governments within the framework the bill sets.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals the prior version of Section 3513 and enacts a new Section 3513 that permanently prohibits taking or possessing migratory birds listed under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act as of January 1, 2025, and any species added to that federal list thereafter.
AB 454 removes the prior “migratory nongame bird” language and instead covers “any migratory bird” designated under the federal act, broadening the set of protected species at the state level.
The statute narrows the exception that limited criminal liability under the prior text, which the Legislative Counsel says expands the scope of a crime under the Fish and Game Code (the bill relies on existing criminal enforcement provisions rather than creating new penalties).
The bill includes an urgency clause making it effective immediately on approval, shortening the time stakeholders have to adjust to the new, broader protections.
AB 454 contains a clause stating that the state will not reimburse local agencies for costs of the state-mandated local program created by the bill, placing implementation and enforcement costs on local governments unless otherwise funded.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Repeal of prior Section 3513
The bill explicitly repeals the earlier iteration of Section 3513 that contained a temporal limitation and applied to ‘‘migratory nongame birds’’ with a scheduled repeal date. Repealing the prior statutory language clears the way for the new, broader provision and removes the earlier sunset mechanics that would have terminated state-level protection.
Permanent prohibition on taking or possessing migratory birds
This is the operative change: the bill adds a new Section 3513 that makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory bird designated in the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act before January 1, 2025, and any additional species added to the federal list after that date, or any part of those birds, ‘‘except as provided.’’ The new text replaces the ‘‘nongame’’ qualifier with an unqualified reference to ‘‘migratory bird,’’ and it tightens the statutory exception language, which increases the potential for criminal enforcement under existing Fish and Game Code provisions. The provision relies on the federal list to define covered species rather than enumerating species in state law.
Expands criminal scope by narrowing exception
Although the bill does not create new penalties, by narrowing the statutory exception it increases the range of conduct that can be charged as a violation of the Fish and Game Code. Practically, prosecutors and law enforcement will apply existing misdemeanor/felony provisions in the Code to conduct that falls within the new Section 3513, potentially increasing prosecutions for incidental takes unless other administrative remedies or permits are available.
No state reimbursement required; urgency effective immediately
The bill includes two administrative clauses: one declaring that the state is not required to reimburse local agencies or school districts for costs mandated by the act, and an urgency clause making the statute effective immediately on approval. The practical effect is to accelerate implementation while leaving local fiscal responsibility for enforcement and compliance-related costs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Migratory bird populations and conservation biologists — they gain a permanent, statewide prohibition that provides a clearer legal foundation for species protection and recovery efforts, especially for species on or added to the federal list.
- Conservation and environmental NGOs — the bill gives advocacy groups a durable statutory tool to press for enforcement, mitigation, and habitat protections tied to a stable state-level prohibition.
- State wildlife managers (DFW) — having a permanent statutory prohibition tied to the federal list simplifies long-term planning and coordination with federal listings and conservation programs.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local law enforcement and prosecutors — the expanded criminal scope increases enforcement duties and caseloads without an identified state reimbursement, pressuring local budgets and priorities.
- Developers, renewable energy operators, and infrastructure companies — activities that create incidental takes (construction, wind turbines, solar projects) face greater legal risk and potential compliance or mitigation costs as the protected species list broadens.
- Agricultural operators and pest-control businesses — everyday practices that result in bird mortality or possession could attract enforcement action unless operational practices are changed or exemptions clarified.
- Private landowners and property managers — the broader prohibition and tightened exception could expose landowners to criminal liability for otherwise routine activities that incidentally take or possess migratory birds.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between creating durable, state-level protections for migratory bird species (and the clarity and conservation benefit that permanence provides) and the legal and economic costs of expanding criminal liability for a wide range of incidental or operational activities—especially where the bill leaves implementation pathways, exceptions, and coordination with federal permit regimes underspecified.
AB 454 resolves the temporary nature of California’s prior migratory bird protection by making the prohibition permanent and by linking state coverage to the federal list as it stands on January 1, 2025 and as it is amended in the future. That linkage simplifies species identification but also imports federal listing changes automatically into state law; California will protect any species added federally without a separate state listing process.
That design trades administrative simplicity for loss of state-specific tailoring.
The bill narrows exceptions to the criminal prohibition but does not set out new permitting, incidental take authorization, or a regulatory compliance pathway at the state level. That creates an implementation gap: regulated parties and enforcement agencies will confront tension between criminal enforcement and existing federal mechanisms (permits, incidental take authorizations, or agency guidance).
Local governments face immediate fiscal and operational impacts because the bill declares no state reimbursement and takes effect immediately, yet it provides little guidance on how regulators should prioritize enforcement, handle incidental takes, or coordinate with federal permits.
Finally, the statutory language leaves open key definitional and practical questions — what counts as ‘‘taking’’ or ‘‘possessing’’ in common project scenarios, how exceptions apply to authorized scientific, conservation, or subsistence activities, and whether long-standing regulated activities (e.g., certain hunting or fish-and-game practices) require retooling. Those questions will likely be resolved through enforcement practice, agency guidance, or litigation rather than within the text of the bill itself, producing a period of legal uncertainty for affected stakeholders.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.