SB 1021 adds Section 318 to the Fish and Game Code and directs the Fish and Game Commission to establish a program to increase opportunities for fishing and for hunting certain game species for two narrowly defined youth groups: those with life‑threatening illnesses and those who have lost a parent in service to the state or country. The commission must develop the program in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and interested nonprofit organizations whose goals are tied to the management and conservation of the covered species and who primarily represent individuals licensed under Section 3031.
The bill sets a limited statutory framework — who should be helped and who the commission must consult — but it leaves operational details, funding, eligibility rules, timelines, and liability protections to implementation. For agencies, nonprofits, and outdoor service providers, the practical question is how the commission will translate this consultative mandate into a funded, administrable program that complies with existing conservation and licensing rules.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Fish and Game Commission to create a program that expands fishing and hunting opportunities for two defined youth populations and directs the commission to consult the Department of Fish and Wildlife and certain conservation‑oriented nonprofits when developing the program. It ties the statutory term “big game” to the regulatory definition found in Title 14, Section 350.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the Fish and Game Commission (responsible for program design), the Department of Fish and Wildlife (consultation partner), nonprofits involved in fish-and-game management and license-holder representation, and the targeted youth populations and their families. Outdoor outfitters, volunteer mentors, and license administrators will likely be involved in on‑the‑ground delivery.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a legal obligation for the commission to prioritize access for vulnerable youth groups within the agency’s fish-and-wildlife remit, establishing consultative lines with DFW and licensed-interest nonprofits. That obligation could change agency workloads, influence permit and outreach practices, and prompt operational coordination across state and nonprofit actors without providing dedicated funding or implementation instructions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1021 instructs the Fish and Game Commission to build a program that increases participation in fishing activities and in hunting for large game, upland game birds, and migratory game birds for two specific groups of young people: children facing life‑threatening illnesses and children who lost a parent while serving the state or country. The statute does not prescribe a specific model for the program; instead it sets the commission’s objective and identifies who the commission must consult as it designs the initiative.
The consultation requirement binds the commission to work with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and with nonprofit organizations that focus on management and conservation of the covered species and that primarily represent the interests of persons licensed under Section 3031. That language narrows the pool of potential nonprofit partners to organizations with conservation and licensed‑sport constituencies rather than to general youth or health‑service groups.
By referencing existing license‑holder representation, the bill signals that the program should align with current licensing and management frameworks rather than create parallel entitlement streams.SB 1021 also anchors the statutory term “big game” to the regulatory definition in Title 14, Section 350 of the California Code of Regulations. Practically, that prevents legal disputes over species categories by importing the administrative definition used in enforcement and permitting.
Notably, the bill sets no funding mechanism, no timeline for rollout, no eligibility verification process beyond the two named youth populations, and no specific liability or safety rules for carrying out fishing or hunting activities. Those omissions leave considerable discretion to the commission and the department during implementation and point to several operational and interagency coordination questions that would need resolving before events or hunts could occur.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 1021 adds a new Section 318 to the Fish and Game Code and places it immediately after Section 317.
The commission must consult the Department of Fish and Wildlife and ‘interested nonprofit organizations’ that primarily represent persons licensed under Section 3031—limiting partners to conservation/management and license‑holder focused groups.
The statute defines ‘big game’ by reference to Title 14, Section 350 of the California Code of Regulations, importing the administrative species list used for hunting permits.
The legislative digest accompanying the bill lists ‘Appropriation: NO’ and routes the bill to the fiscal committee, indicating no direct funding authorization is included in the text.
The bill sets program goals and consultation duties but does not specify funding, eligibility verification mechanisms, timelines, reporting requirements, or liability and safety protocols for program events.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Program mandate to expand youth fishing and hunting access
This subsection requires the Fish and Game Commission to establish a program to increase opportunities for fishing and for hunting big game, upland game birds, and migratory game birds specifically for youth with life‑threatening illnesses and youth who have lost a parent in service. The requirement is phrased as a mandate to create a program but contains no further guidance on program structure, participant selection, or delivery mechanisms, so implementation choices—educational outings, special permits, escorted hunts, or partnered events—are left to agency rulemaking or policy work.
Consultation with DFW and specified nonprofit partners
This subsection obliges the commission to consult with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and interested nonprofits that ‘have goals and objectives directly related to the management and conservation’ of the species covered and that ‘primarily represent the interests of persons licensed pursuant to Section 3031.’ Practically, the consultation mandate sets up a required stakeholder circle focused on conservation and license‑holder representation rather than on broader youth‑service or health nonprofits. The provision does not define the scope, timing, or formality of consultation (e.g., advisory committee, public workshops, memoranda of understanding), leaving procedural details to the commission.
Definition: big game tied to Title 14 regulation
Subsection (b) incorporates the regulatory definition of ‘big game’ by referencing Section 350 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. That cross‑reference avoids creating a new statutory species list and ensures consistency with existing hunting permit categories, season structures, and bag limits administered under Title 14. For implementers, this means program activities involving ‘big game’ will follow the established regulatory classifications used by DFW and enforcement officers.
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
- Youth with life‑threatening illnesses: The statute gives state agencies a clear mandate to create more outdoor recreation opportunities tailored to these children, potentially improving access to therapeutic or recreational fishing and hunting experiences.
- Youth who lost a parent in service to the state or country: The bill explicitly prioritizes this group for program participation, which may channel outreach, special events, or prioritized slots in hunts or fishing outings.
- Conservation‑oriented nonprofits that represent license‑holders: Organizations that focus on fish and game management and that are tied to licensed hunters/fishers gain a formal consultative role in program design and potential visibility in state‑sponsored youth outreach.
- Outdoor service providers and volunteer mentors: Guides, outfitters, shooting ranges, and volunteer mentors could see new demand for services, partnership opportunities, or contracted roles supporting program events.
Who Bears the Cost
- Fish and Game Commission: The commission must design, coordinate, and oversee the program, which will require staff time and administrative capacity; with no appropriation in the bill, those costs must be absorbed into existing budgets or covered by partners.
- Department of Fish and Wildlife: DFW is a required consultation partner and may be asked to provide technical, logistical, or permitting support without specified reimbursement.
- Participating nonprofits: Groups asked to consult or to help deliver programming may need to devote staff and volunteer resources to planning, outreach, background checks, and on‑site supervision.
- Local land managers and permit administrators: Implementing hunting or fishing events for special populations may require additional permitting, site preparation, or temporary exemptions, creating administrative work for local agencies and landowners.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing a compassionate, access‑expanding program for vulnerable youth against the realities of conservation law, public safety, and agency capacity: the bill requires increased opportunities but provides no funding, narrow partner criteria that may exclude relevant service organizations, and no mechanism to resolve conflicts with existing seasons, permits, or conservation limits.
SB 1021 establishes a clear policy objective but leaves the hard operational questions unanswered. The commission must create the program and consult specified partners, yet the statute omits funding, timelines, concrete eligibility verification, reporting, and liability or safety rules.
Those omissions mean successful delivery will require either additional legislation to appropriate funds and clarify legal protections, reallocating existing agency budgets, or heavy reliance on volunteer and nonprofit support.
The consultative language narrows partners to conservation and license‑holder‑focused nonprofits, which could speed alignment with existing hunting and fishing rules but may exclude health, pediatric, or bereavement service organizations that specialize in serving the target youth populations. Tension also exists between expanding access for vulnerable youth and preserving conservation and regulatory constraints: hunts and fishing events must still fit within seasons, bag limits, permit allocations, and safety protocols, and the bill does not specify how to reconcile conflicts if program demand collides with conservation priorities or limited tag availability.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.