Migratory birds: California Migratory Bird Protection Act.

Assembly Member Kalra, with Senator Allen as a coauthor, steers California toward a Migratory Bird Protection framework that immediately prohibits taking or possessing migratory birds designated by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, anchored in federal rules for any exceptions. The measure is styled as an urgency statute intended to take effect right away, signaling a direct alignment with federal protections while preserving a California-specific standard for what counts as permissible activity.

The bill repeals the prior migratory-bird provision and, in its place, adds a new prohibition that covers migratory birds designated under the MBTA both before and after a specific date, with carve-outs limited to federal rules adopted under the MBTA (whether those predate or postdate that date) so long as those rules are not inconsistent with California law. In practical terms, California would treat taking or possessing these birds—and any part of them—as unlawful, except to the extent federal MBTA regulations authorize conduct, and subject to the state’s own consistency limitation. The new regime creates a criminal offense under the state wildlife framework, with penalties and procedures to be drawn from existing law for migratory-bird violations, rather than establishing a distinct California-permitting regime.

Implementation would occur without an appropriation, and the act is paired with an urgency declaration to take effect immediately. The fiscal provisions acknowledge a potential question of local-mandated costs due to expanded criminal enforcement, while the directive states that no state reimbursement is required for those costs. Enforcement would be carried out under the state wildlife code framework, with coordination to comply with MBTA rules, and by implication involving wildlife law enforcement officials and prosecutors in applying the new prohibition.

Contextually, the measure formalizes a broader, MBTA-aligned prohibition by replacing the earlier framework and relying on federal-rule-based exemptions rather than a state permitting scheme. This creates a direct cross-jurisdictional dynamic: California can permit only what MBTA rules allow, so long as those rules are not inconsistent with California’s codified standard. Stakeholders including wildlife-conservation groups, researchers, and industries handling birds would need to monitor MBTA regulations for permitted activities, while local agencies and enforcement bodies would weigh the new crime's practical implications within the existing enforcement landscape. The urgency designation and the interaction with fiscal analyses suggest ongoing scrutiny of implementation and any associated costs.