DEVOREFLYER
01-24-2014, 07:24 AM
Whether you are aware or not we as sportsmen (hunters, fishermen and outdoorsmen) we are under attack. Yes you heard it we are under attack if you haven't noticed. It is past time to voice your outrage and get involved.
By JIM MATTHEWS
www.OutdoorNewsService.com
It seems to be a new policy that the state Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) integrate the beliefs of rabid anti-hunting groups like the Human Society of the United State (HSUS) into making wildlife management decisions and setting policy that affects fish and game.
Since the main job of both the DFW and FGC is to scientifically manage fish and game species for sustainable hunting and fishing, it might seem puzzling to include individuals and groups that believe all consumptive uses of wildlife should be eliminated. But under the current DFW director Chuck Bonham, the anti-hunters have been embraced in a gesture of inclusiveness. But it’s wrong.
Hunters and fisherman have earned their place at the management table two ways. First, they support scientific efforts done by the DFW and the policy decisions made by the Commission to implement that science. It hasn’t always been a rosy relationship, but both sides – the sporting public and the government employees – always knew they were on the same side: making sure wildlife populations were thriving. Second, hunters and fishermen have been the source of funding for this science and policy process through license and tag/stamp dollars and excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment.
The money doesn’t come from the state’s general tax fund. It comes from hunters and fisherman’s pockets to make sure we have the best management of our state’s wildlife.
The anti-hunting groups are picking our sporting pockets.
Their voices are now being heard without any financial investment, equity in the science, or respect for the decision-making process.
We all know the HSUS platform: end all hunting and fishing. That position has no basis in science. In fact, it ignores science. The only reason to end hunting or fishing is political, not scientific. The science doesn’t matter to these people. It’s not about science, it’s about emotion. They are offended that you or I hunt or fish, and feel it’s their right to force their opinion into how we managed the state’s wildlife. They should have as much say as hunters and fishermen, right?
Well, the answer to that is simply, “No, they don’t.”
Hunters and fishermen invest both their money and time to assure the state’s wildlife in managed as well as professional scientists can do that job. The antis don’t care what the science says. Their opinion reigns supreme. Can you imagine if we let extreme opinions determine critical care for people with life-threatening diseases or injuries instead of what has been proven as the scientifically best treatment? Can you imagine if we went back to an era when prejudice and racism were encoded into our legal and social system? The antis are fundamentally prejudiced.
But the DFW and FGC is saying that prejudiced position matters.
So let’s say we even concede they deserve to be able to have their say politically, where opinions don’t have to be based in fact and science. (Why not concede to this? California politics have been run this way for years.) I suggest they still don’t deserve a seat at the decision-making table for the simple fact they haven’t paid their dues, so to speak.
When you want to vote, you have to register to vote. When you want to drive, you have to test for driving and purchase a license. When you want to have a say in deer management or rockfish regulations, it was well known that the hunters and fishermen bought their licenses. It was just like voting or driving, a payment of either time, money, or both.
So here’s a modest proposal so that everyone, the anti-hunters and anti-fishermen included, can have a seat at the wildlife management and regulatory table and participate in the process just like hunters and fishermen have done for years.
If you want to comment on the DFW’s scientific efforts or voice your opinion to the FGC on regulations, you need to have the appropriate hunting or fishing license. If you want to use any of the state-owned lands, and comment on their management, you need to buy a hunting, fishing, or new “access” license. We all have to pay to go to state parks. Why are DFW wildlife areas or ecological reserves free to everyone except to hunters and fishermen? This way the antis have an investment in the effort that goes well beyond emotion.
If the antis want to participate in anything about mammals, they have to buy a hunting license, which would also mandate they take a hunter safety course where they are taught about game management and wildlife identification (think of it as driving school). While I doubt it would make any of them realize the stupidity of their anti-hunting beliefs, it would give them a direct way to have a financial impact on the wildlife they claim to care about. Once they have that hunting license, they could apply for big game tags. If drawn, they would prevent a hunter from getting that tag and directly stop someone from hunting and maybe killing that animal while supporting the state scientists. Maybe some of them would even get down off their soap boxes and actually do some habitat work or improve a wildlife water source that will have a far bigger benefit to wildlife than all their anti-hunting rhetoric.
Of course, the antis won’t like this idea. They don’t spend a dime to actually benefit wildlife. They’re all about lawsuits and legislation and regulatory solutions to get their opinions enforced -- science and wildlife be darned.
The antis like to say hunters and fishermen buying licenses create an unholy alliance with the scientists and decision makers. Some unholy alliance. We’ve seen our hunting and fishing opportunities dwindle yearly, so our influence must not reign supreme. But if they believe that is true, we should encourage them to step up and put their money where their mouth is and take over the management system. They claim to represent the majority of Californians. If so, they should step up and become the new majority purchasers of hunting and fishing licenses. Flex that financial and political muscle. Maybe they could even change the name to anti-hunting and anti-fishing licenses.
What do you think?
The Humane Society’s stated agenda is to end all hunting and fishing in the United States and say they will do it species by species, season by season, method of take by method of take. Jennifer Fearing, the HSUS state director, was appointed to the Fish and Game Commission’s Wildlife Resources Committee last year and heads up that group’s Predator Subcommittee. Fearing, who walks the governor’s dogs, pressured the Commission to reexamine the statewide regulations on predators and non-game wildlife. Here are summaries of that subcommittee’s recommendations:
-- End all bobcat hunting and trapping in California
-- End all hunting and trapping for all species if they are taken for commercial gain
-- End the use of dogs for all hunting of mammals
-- End all hunting competitions, whether they are for financial gain or not
All of these are steps right out of the HSUS playbook, and none of the moves can be justified based on science, only emotion. Unless there is active opposition by the sporting community, agricultural-ranching interests, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, there is a good chance politics will drive these recommendations right through the Wildlife Resources Committee and Fish and Game Commission into regulation changes.
Embattled Fish and Game Commissioner Michael Sutton, who has again been in the public spotlight for flagrant conflict of interest decisions as Commissioner, appointed Fearing to the Wildlife Resources Committee last year and apparently Fearing’s Predator Subcommittee has no hunting, trapping, or scientific representatives. The director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Chuck Bonham, has proven to be a good puppet for the governor’s office and will likely prevent the DFW scientists from weighing in on these issues.
What those scientists would tell you is that the bobcat population in California is thriving even with an active sport hunting and trapping programs, although there are far fewer hunters and trappers than historically in the state. During the 2012-13 season, about 12,400 bobcat hunting tags were sold and only 324 were taken by hunters. Another 1,200 bobcats were taken by licensed trappers using box traps. This is well below the 14,400 bobcat annual harvest quota set by the DFW and USFWS scientists. Historically, there are probably more bobcats in California than in recent history with the population saturated throughout the available habitat.
The science doesn’t suggest either a bobcat hunting or trapping ban is necessary, so why ban it? It’s because the HSUS and its ilk don’t like people killing animals at all, ever. They don’t want trappers to be able to make money trapping muskrats or bobcats. They don’t want you to be able to buy chickens raised in a coop and killed for your barbecue, either. They see them the same. These people are now helping to direct hunting policy in this state. They’ll be in your kitchen soon enough.
They want to end the use of dogs for hunting because it’s inhumane in their playbook. That’s simply a lie. We’ve banned the use if dogs for bear hunting in this state and it’s resulted in more young bears, female bears, and bears with cubs being killed by hunters because the animals aren’t bayed or up trees where they can be examined before being shot. It was a bad political decision for bears, and it’s just as bad for all other mammals that are hunted with dogs -- bobcats, raccoons, and foxes. Don’t buy in to the antis emotional lies and lack of scientific data. Banning dogs for hunting is a bad idea.
Even the HSUS’ howling about “competition” hunting is based solely on emotion. It’s fine for you not to like that a bunch of varmint hunters get together for a weekend of camping and hunting and then give awards at the end of the weekend for the guy or team that bagged the most coyotes. But it’s certainly not illegal and it doesn’t have an impact on the predator population. So why should it be banned? Because you don’t like it? Ground squirrel hunting competitions actually help ranchers in northeastern California reduce populations of the rodents that are eating their crops into non-profit status. And the hunting competition reduces the rodent numbers without the use of poisons that have residual impacts on the environment -- the usual method for reducing rodent numbers. But you don’t like the idea of it?
Banning things “you don’t like” is a pretty slippery slope. Your pet hobbies and foods could be banned next. Unfortunately, we’re in free-fall down that slippery slope here in California. Each year, more and more things are banned and regulated that don’t need banning or regulation. When the antis get rid of all the hunters and fishermen, all of you non-vegans will be targeted next. We could use a big injection of libertarian common sense into this state.
The US Fish & Wildlife Service has proposed listing the Mountain Yellow Legged Frog and the Yosemite Toad as endangered species.
This designation will include over 1.8 million acres covering a majority of the Sierra Nevada Range as critical habitat, including over 84,000 acres of private property.
This listing is the result of a Sue & Settle Agreement conducted in secret between the USFWS and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). If this designation is implemented it will affect all activities in the Sierras including trail riding; off road vehicles; small scale mining; logging; fire management; private property and even fishing.
When: January 30, 2014 @ 1:00 pm
Where: Sacramento Horseman's Association
3200 Longview Drive
Sacramento,CA 95821
USA
USFWS Frogs & Toads "Final" Public Hearing on Critical Habitat
When: Same day at 6:00 PM
By JIM MATTHEWS
www.OutdoorNewsService.com
It seems to be a new policy that the state Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) integrate the beliefs of rabid anti-hunting groups like the Human Society of the United State (HSUS) into making wildlife management decisions and setting policy that affects fish and game.
Since the main job of both the DFW and FGC is to scientifically manage fish and game species for sustainable hunting and fishing, it might seem puzzling to include individuals and groups that believe all consumptive uses of wildlife should be eliminated. But under the current DFW director Chuck Bonham, the anti-hunters have been embraced in a gesture of inclusiveness. But it’s wrong.
Hunters and fisherman have earned their place at the management table two ways. First, they support scientific efforts done by the DFW and the policy decisions made by the Commission to implement that science. It hasn’t always been a rosy relationship, but both sides – the sporting public and the government employees – always knew they were on the same side: making sure wildlife populations were thriving. Second, hunters and fishermen have been the source of funding for this science and policy process through license and tag/stamp dollars and excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment.
The money doesn’t come from the state’s general tax fund. It comes from hunters and fisherman’s pockets to make sure we have the best management of our state’s wildlife.
The anti-hunting groups are picking our sporting pockets.
Their voices are now being heard without any financial investment, equity in the science, or respect for the decision-making process.
We all know the HSUS platform: end all hunting and fishing. That position has no basis in science. In fact, it ignores science. The only reason to end hunting or fishing is political, not scientific. The science doesn’t matter to these people. It’s not about science, it’s about emotion. They are offended that you or I hunt or fish, and feel it’s their right to force their opinion into how we managed the state’s wildlife. They should have as much say as hunters and fishermen, right?
Well, the answer to that is simply, “No, they don’t.”
Hunters and fishermen invest both their money and time to assure the state’s wildlife in managed as well as professional scientists can do that job. The antis don’t care what the science says. Their opinion reigns supreme. Can you imagine if we let extreme opinions determine critical care for people with life-threatening diseases or injuries instead of what has been proven as the scientifically best treatment? Can you imagine if we went back to an era when prejudice and racism were encoded into our legal and social system? The antis are fundamentally prejudiced.
But the DFW and FGC is saying that prejudiced position matters.
So let’s say we even concede they deserve to be able to have their say politically, where opinions don’t have to be based in fact and science. (Why not concede to this? California politics have been run this way for years.) I suggest they still don’t deserve a seat at the decision-making table for the simple fact they haven’t paid their dues, so to speak.
When you want to vote, you have to register to vote. When you want to drive, you have to test for driving and purchase a license. When you want to have a say in deer management or rockfish regulations, it was well known that the hunters and fishermen bought their licenses. It was just like voting or driving, a payment of either time, money, or both.
So here’s a modest proposal so that everyone, the anti-hunters and anti-fishermen included, can have a seat at the wildlife management and regulatory table and participate in the process just like hunters and fishermen have done for years.
If you want to comment on the DFW’s scientific efforts or voice your opinion to the FGC on regulations, you need to have the appropriate hunting or fishing license. If you want to use any of the state-owned lands, and comment on their management, you need to buy a hunting, fishing, or new “access” license. We all have to pay to go to state parks. Why are DFW wildlife areas or ecological reserves free to everyone except to hunters and fishermen? This way the antis have an investment in the effort that goes well beyond emotion.
If the antis want to participate in anything about mammals, they have to buy a hunting license, which would also mandate they take a hunter safety course where they are taught about game management and wildlife identification (think of it as driving school). While I doubt it would make any of them realize the stupidity of their anti-hunting beliefs, it would give them a direct way to have a financial impact on the wildlife they claim to care about. Once they have that hunting license, they could apply for big game tags. If drawn, they would prevent a hunter from getting that tag and directly stop someone from hunting and maybe killing that animal while supporting the state scientists. Maybe some of them would even get down off their soap boxes and actually do some habitat work or improve a wildlife water source that will have a far bigger benefit to wildlife than all their anti-hunting rhetoric.
Of course, the antis won’t like this idea. They don’t spend a dime to actually benefit wildlife. They’re all about lawsuits and legislation and regulatory solutions to get their opinions enforced -- science and wildlife be darned.
The antis like to say hunters and fishermen buying licenses create an unholy alliance with the scientists and decision makers. Some unholy alliance. We’ve seen our hunting and fishing opportunities dwindle yearly, so our influence must not reign supreme. But if they believe that is true, we should encourage them to step up and put their money where their mouth is and take over the management system. They claim to represent the majority of Californians. If so, they should step up and become the new majority purchasers of hunting and fishing licenses. Flex that financial and political muscle. Maybe they could even change the name to anti-hunting and anti-fishing licenses.
What do you think?
The Humane Society’s stated agenda is to end all hunting and fishing in the United States and say they will do it species by species, season by season, method of take by method of take. Jennifer Fearing, the HSUS state director, was appointed to the Fish and Game Commission’s Wildlife Resources Committee last year and heads up that group’s Predator Subcommittee. Fearing, who walks the governor’s dogs, pressured the Commission to reexamine the statewide regulations on predators and non-game wildlife. Here are summaries of that subcommittee’s recommendations:
-- End all bobcat hunting and trapping in California
-- End all hunting and trapping for all species if they are taken for commercial gain
-- End the use of dogs for all hunting of mammals
-- End all hunting competitions, whether they are for financial gain or not
All of these are steps right out of the HSUS playbook, and none of the moves can be justified based on science, only emotion. Unless there is active opposition by the sporting community, agricultural-ranching interests, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, there is a good chance politics will drive these recommendations right through the Wildlife Resources Committee and Fish and Game Commission into regulation changes.
Embattled Fish and Game Commissioner Michael Sutton, who has again been in the public spotlight for flagrant conflict of interest decisions as Commissioner, appointed Fearing to the Wildlife Resources Committee last year and apparently Fearing’s Predator Subcommittee has no hunting, trapping, or scientific representatives. The director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Chuck Bonham, has proven to be a good puppet for the governor’s office and will likely prevent the DFW scientists from weighing in on these issues.
What those scientists would tell you is that the bobcat population in California is thriving even with an active sport hunting and trapping programs, although there are far fewer hunters and trappers than historically in the state. During the 2012-13 season, about 12,400 bobcat hunting tags were sold and only 324 were taken by hunters. Another 1,200 bobcats were taken by licensed trappers using box traps. This is well below the 14,400 bobcat annual harvest quota set by the DFW and USFWS scientists. Historically, there are probably more bobcats in California than in recent history with the population saturated throughout the available habitat.
The science doesn’t suggest either a bobcat hunting or trapping ban is necessary, so why ban it? It’s because the HSUS and its ilk don’t like people killing animals at all, ever. They don’t want trappers to be able to make money trapping muskrats or bobcats. They don’t want you to be able to buy chickens raised in a coop and killed for your barbecue, either. They see them the same. These people are now helping to direct hunting policy in this state. They’ll be in your kitchen soon enough.
They want to end the use of dogs for hunting because it’s inhumane in their playbook. That’s simply a lie. We’ve banned the use if dogs for bear hunting in this state and it’s resulted in more young bears, female bears, and bears with cubs being killed by hunters because the animals aren’t bayed or up trees where they can be examined before being shot. It was a bad political decision for bears, and it’s just as bad for all other mammals that are hunted with dogs -- bobcats, raccoons, and foxes. Don’t buy in to the antis emotional lies and lack of scientific data. Banning dogs for hunting is a bad idea.
Even the HSUS’ howling about “competition” hunting is based solely on emotion. It’s fine for you not to like that a bunch of varmint hunters get together for a weekend of camping and hunting and then give awards at the end of the weekend for the guy or team that bagged the most coyotes. But it’s certainly not illegal and it doesn’t have an impact on the predator population. So why should it be banned? Because you don’t like it? Ground squirrel hunting competitions actually help ranchers in northeastern California reduce populations of the rodents that are eating their crops into non-profit status. And the hunting competition reduces the rodent numbers without the use of poisons that have residual impacts on the environment -- the usual method for reducing rodent numbers. But you don’t like the idea of it?
Banning things “you don’t like” is a pretty slippery slope. Your pet hobbies and foods could be banned next. Unfortunately, we’re in free-fall down that slippery slope here in California. Each year, more and more things are banned and regulated that don’t need banning or regulation. When the antis get rid of all the hunters and fishermen, all of you non-vegans will be targeted next. We could use a big injection of libertarian common sense into this state.
The US Fish & Wildlife Service has proposed listing the Mountain Yellow Legged Frog and the Yosemite Toad as endangered species.
This designation will include over 1.8 million acres covering a majority of the Sierra Nevada Range as critical habitat, including over 84,000 acres of private property.
This listing is the result of a Sue & Settle Agreement conducted in secret between the USFWS and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). If this designation is implemented it will affect all activities in the Sierras including trail riding; off road vehicles; small scale mining; logging; fire management; private property and even fishing.
When: January 30, 2014 @ 1:00 pm
Where: Sacramento Horseman's Association
3200 Longview Drive
Sacramento,CA 95821
USA
USFWS Frogs & Toads "Final" Public Hearing on Critical Habitat
When: Same day at 6:00 PM