California Assembly Bill AB2207

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/19/26
• Refer: 3/9/26
• Report Pass: 3/12/26
• Refer: 3/16/26
• Report Pass: 4/6/26
• Refer: 4/7/26
• Report Pass: 4/15/26
• Refer: 4/15/26
• Report Pass: 5/6/26
• Engrossed: 5/14/26
• Refer: 5/14/26
• Refer: 5/27/26
• Report Pass: 6/8/26
• Refer: 6/8/26

Caption

An act to amend amend, repeal, and add Section 1052 of, and to add and repeal Sections 1054.6 and 1054.7 to, of, the Fish and Game Code, relating to hunting.

Summary

AB 2207 would create two new hunting tag transfer programs in the Fish and Game Code, carving out exceptions to the existing prohibition on transferring hunting licenses, tags, stamps, permits, applications, or reservations. One program would allow a hunter to transfer certain big-game tags to a child or grandchild, provided the recipient is 17 or younger, has a valid hunting license, is otherwise eligible for the tag, and is accompanied by a parent, legal guardian, or grandparent during the hunt. The bill also preserves preference points for the transferee in modified-preference drawings and directs that any future ineligibility rules apply to the original tag holder rather than the youth recipient. The second program would allow eligible nonprofit organizations to facilitate the donation and transfer of certain big-game tags to youth with life-threatening illnesses or permanent physical disabilities, and to disabled veterans. To participate, an organization must be a qualifying 501(c)(3) with conservation-related goals and a demonstrated history of providing hunting opportunities to those populations. The organization would submit a request to the Department of Fish and Wildlife with a signed donation statement, proof of recipient eligibility, the unused tag, and a description of the hunting opportunity, after which the department would transfer the tag if the request is complete. The bill would amend Section 1052 of the Fish and Game Code to expressly exempt transfers authorized under new Sections 1054.6 and 1054.7 from the general ban on tag transfers. It would also authorize the department to charge fees to cover administrative costs for transfers and organization registration, and would require those revenues to be deposited into the Big Game Management Account. The department would be allowed to adopt regulations to implement both programs. The overall sentiment reflected in the available vote history appears strongly favorable. The bill passed the Assembly committee vote 13-0 and was recommended for the consent calendar, suggesting broad support and little opposition at that stage. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate significant concerns in the available materials. The main points of potential contention are practical and policy-based rather than partisan: whether allowing tag transfers could affect the fairness of California’s big-game drawing system, how the preference-point rules should work, and whether the department and participating organizations can administer the programs without undue burden. The bill attempts to address some of those concerns by limiting transfers to close family members in one program, restricting organizational participation to qualified nonprofits, and allowing fees to offset administrative costs.

Impact

AB 2207 would modify the Fish and Game Code by creating explicit statutory exceptions to the current prohibition on transferring hunting tags. It would add new Sections 1054.6 and 1054.7 and revise Section 1052 so that authorized family transfers and nonprofit-facilitated transfers are lawful. The bill would affect the Department of Fish and Wildlife, hunters seeking big-game tags, qualifying nonprofits, youth recipients, disabled veterans, and youth with serious medical or physical conditions. It would also direct fee revenue into the Big Game Management Account and authorize regulatory implementation by the department.

Sentiment

The available voting record indicates clear support for the bill, with a 13-0 committee vote and a recommendation to place it on the consent calendar. That suggests the measure was viewed as broadly acceptable and noncontroversial in committee. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no direct record of debate, amendments discussed on the record, or organized opposition in the materials supplied.

Contention

The likely areas of contention involve wildlife-management policy and program administration. Critics could question whether allowing tag transfers, even in limited circumstances, might undermine the integrity of the state’s tag-drawing and preference-point system or create inequities among hunters who do not have eligible family members or access to participating nonprofits. There may also be concern about administrative complexity for the department, verification of recipient eligibility, and the scope of nonprofit involvement. Supporters, by contrast, appear to favor the bill’s family-hunting and access-oriented goals, especially for youth, seriously ill children, and disabled veterans.