This excerpt from the Initial Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action would leave the determination of what species your pet is up to the warden’s or officer’s discretion or opinion.  For many, this would mean meeting the rules and standards applicable to full wolves for any animal that the warden thinks is “wolfy”:

 

Full text available HERE (under the section Section 681, Title 14, CCR, Hybrid Animals and Plants  Initial Statement of Reasons):

 

  • Statement of Specific Purpose of Regulation Change and Factual Basis for Determining that Regulation Change is Reasonably Necessary: The Fish and Game Code and its implementing regulations do not contain a general section regulating hybrid plants and animals. A fish, mammal, or plant that is a hybrid of two or more species is not a specific species and therefore is not addressed within most regulations and code sections referring to bag limits, seasons, take, possession limits and mere
  • + possession. Examples are a hybrid between bass species (i.e. largemouth and spotted bass), hybrids of exotic cats, and hybrid canines such as coy-dogs. Some individuals have attempted to exploit this loophole in the law, by claiming that their animals are hybrids, and therefore no regulation applies to their take or possession. Although some hybrids occur naturally, further hybridizations of species are expected as scientific methods improve. Examples of potential problem areas include abalone, fin fish, falconry, waterfowl, aquaculture, and restricted species. The proposal would not only help regulate true hybrids but would help in preventing violators from using a “hybrid defense” by causing the Department to be forced to prove a specific animal is indeed a specific species and therefore regulated. The proposal would give wardens latitude in enforcing laws without having to contend with a biological grey area as it relates to proof of species. An agency which enforces plant and animal laws is placed at a disadvantage if it lacks regulations to reasonably address hybrid issues.

 

The New Regulatory Language : This Section would require that the use of the highest level of “protection” (meaning permits, containment, transport rules) be applied.   Your 99% Malamute may be subjectively determined to be 1% wolf, so full wolf rules would apply:

 

Full text available HERE (under the section Section 681, Title 14, CCR, Hybrid Animals and Plants  titled Proposed Regulatory Language):

 

Section 681, Title 14, CCR, is added to read:

§ 681 Hybrids.

(a) Hybrids are the progeny of animals or plants of different species. Provisions of the Fish and Game Code and regulations adopted pursuant thereto regulating, restricting, or relating to a species that has contributed to the lineage of a hybrid shall apply to that hybrid. Unless otherwise provided in these regulations, when two or more provisions regulating a hybrid conflict with each other, the provision that provides the highest level of protection or that allows the most restrictive level of take, possession, size limit, or bag limit will supersede any other conflicting provisions.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply:

(1) To any duck or goose determined, by the department, to be a hybrid of any domestic species of goose or duck.

(2) When the department determines that the animal or plant is a hybrid of a threatened, endangered, rare, or fully protected species and further determines that the level of protection is not reasonably extended to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Endangered Species Act, or provisions of these regulations and the Fish and Game Code dealing with threatened, endangered, rare, or fully protected species.

(c) Determinations by the department pursuant to subsection (b) do not have to be

based on past or newly initiated studies.


Title 14, Notice of Proposed Changes in Regulations misinforms the commission by claiming there would be no cost to government or the public, except to those dealing in “undesirable” hybrids.  It wrongly states that there would be no cost to local agencies, and no affect on house costs.  Those of us who know this to be incorrect can take the last section to heart:  the commission is charged with determining the action that would be most “effective and less burdensome to affected private persons.”

 

Full text available HERE (under the section Section 681, Title 14, CCR, Hybrid Animals and Plants  titled Notice of Proposed Changes in Regulations September 1, 2009):

 

Impact of Regulatory Action

The potential for significant statewide adverse economic impacts that might result from the proposed regulatory action has been assessed, and the following initial determinations relative to the required statutory categories have been made:

(a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Business, Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States: The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. The proposal recognizes the heritage of animals and plants enabling the Department to maintain control of species, and their hybrids, that it already regulates.

(b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs within the State, the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or the Expansion of Businesses in California: No significant impact. Possible impact in those that deal in hybrids of restricted species.

(c) Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business:

The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or

business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

However, undesirable hybrids can be affected and therefore those that commercially

deal in such hybrids may be affected.

(d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State:

None.

3

(e) Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies:

None.

(f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts:

None.

(g) Costs Imposed on any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be

Reimbursed Under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4, Government

Code:

None.

(h) Effect on Housing Costs:

None.

Effect on Small Business

It has been determined that the adoption of these regulations may affect small business. The

Commission has drafted the regulations in Plain English pursuant to Government Code sections

11342.580 and 11346.2(a)(1).

 

Consideration of Alternatives

The Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Commission, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Commission, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action.