Gill nets: permits.

As Assembly Member Bennett frames AB 1056, the bill centers a recalibration of gill-net and trammel-net permit transfers by preserving the prohibition on issuing new permits while reshaping how existing permits may move between owners over time. The core change hinges on a 2027 transition that narrows transfer pathways while maintaining permit renewal under the existing framework.

Under the amended section, the department may not issue or renew new gill-net or trammel-net permits, but may renew an existing valid permit under regulations adopted by the commission and upon payment of the fee specified in law. Until January 1, 2027, a permitholder who has demonstrated a 15-year, 20-year commercial harvest history may transfer the permit to any person otherwise qualified under regulations adopted pursuant to 8682, subject to the applicable fee. On or after January 1, 2027, the same eligibility may support a one-time transfer to a family member under those regulations and fees, after which the permit becomes nontransferable.

Implementation relies on regulations to define key parameters: who qualifies as a “family member,” the procedures and documentation for transfers, how the 15/20-year requirement is verified, and the process for a single post-2027 transfer. The regulations adopted under Section 8682 govern the transfer process and the meaning of “qualified under the regulations,” while fees remain governed by Section 8683. The bill also requires the regulatory framework to be coordinated with existing provisions in Section 8681 and the regulatory oversight contemplated by Section 8683.

Contextually, AB 1056 shifts away from a broader disability- or death-based transfer pathway described in the current law toward a staged regime that concentrates transferability within family lines after 2027. The proposal preserves renewal opportunities for existing permits but restricts the pace and scope of transfers over time, with transitional implications for permit holders approaching the 2027 threshold, heirs, and prospective entrants in the fishery. The fiscal considerations are to be reviewed by the Fiscal Committee, and regulatory costs would flow through the agency’s existing framework rather than an explicit new appropriation.