AB 2205
Pass this on to every hunting group you know of, I've been getting on as many of the web pages and facebook pages that I can think of in California
We need to all be there for this, it will be the best chance we have to get our hounds back. I’m sure you are aware that just because this is not your fight YOU are on HSUS list and if you stand and fight for me I will stand and fight for you!
https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 1023_o.jpg
If you can't be there for the rally then ring there phones off the hook on that day.
Anthony Rendon (Chair) Dem - 63 (916) 319-2063
Frank Bigelow (Vice Chair) Rep - 05 (916) 319-2005
Travis Allen Rep - 72 (916) 319-2072
Raul Bocanegra Dem - 39 (916) 319-2039
Brian Dahle Rep - 01 ; (916) 319-2001
Paul Fong Dem - 28 (916) 319-2028
Jim Frazier Dem - 11 (916) 319-2011
Beth Gaines Rep - 06 (916) 319-2006
Mike Gatto Dem - 43 (916) 319-2043
Jimmy Gomez Dem -51 Contact (916) 319-2051
Lorena Gonzalez Dem - 80 (916) 319-2080
Adam C. Gray Dem - 21 (916) 319-2021
Jim Patterson Rep - 23 (916) 319-2023
Freddie Rodriguez Dem - 52 (916) 319-2052
Mariko Yamada Dem - 04 (916) 319-2004
We need to reach out to all the hunting groups
We need to reach out to all the hunting groups
Ignorance and not getting involved is the biggest enemy to a Houndsmen!
-
1bludawg
- Open Mouth
- Posts: 865
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 4:09 pm
- Location: Oregon
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: Oakland,Oregon
Re: We need to reach out to all the hunting groups
If all sportsmen would unite we would be an overwhelming force but first we have to overcome the attitude that if we get this or that group out of the woods there will be more left for me! That's the mindset that killed us in Oregon when we voted on Measure 18.Why do you think they're going after the smaller groups first ? Their self proclaimed goal is to STOP ALL HUNTING!!! As they chip away at us we become weaker and weaker. Everyone knows there is strength in numbers,so we HAVE TO SUPPORT our fellow sportsmen!!! UNITE so that we can continue to hunt for years to come .
Re: We need to reach out to all the hunting groups
IF we could get all of the hunting groups together we would be a overwhelming power, but we can't get half the houndsmen to get off there ass's and defend them selves, make calls, step up and show up at the capital, we are some of the toughest, don't mess with me people there are, but when it comes to defending our selves as a group we are a no-show, I know of all the houndsmen that I know less that half have stepped up.
Ignorance and not getting involved is the biggest enemy to a Houndsmen!
Re: We need to reach out to all the hunting groups
PLEASE SUPPORT AB 2205
The below bill AB 2205 ( Donnelly ) will be very easy for the counties to implement thanks to the passage of the Busch bill, this bill was passed in 1958 for counties to use for antlerless hunts, based on CDF&W science, this new bill will be of little difference, the counties and state can easily use the same guidelines and procedures, this should be an effortless transition, as this bill has been in place and in use for the last fifty six years.
The Busch bill was implemented because our government was aware of the fact that the counties of our state are diverse and the management decisions vary greatly statewide, they believed the individual counties should possess the power to govern based on their constituents needs. ( Below is a explanation of the Busch bill as described by Carrie Wilson a twenty year CDF&W biologist) ............................................................................................
Assembly Bill No. 2205
California Legislature—2013–14 Regular Session Introduced by Assembly Member Donnelly February 20, 2014
An act to amend Section 3960 of, to add Section 4756 to, to repeal Sections 3032, 3960.4, and 3960.6 of, and to repeal and add Section 3960.2 of, the Fish and Game Code, relating to mammals.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 2205, as introduced, Donnelly. Mammals: use of dogs to pursue bears and bobcats.
(1) Existing law, with specified exceptions, makes it unlawful to permit or allow a dog to pursue any bear, as defined, or bobcat at any time. Existing law authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to capture a dog not under the reasonable control of its owner or handler that is pursuing any bear or bobcat in violation of this prohibition or to capture or dispatch a dog inflicting injury or immediately threatening to inflict injury on any bear or bobcat at any time.
This bill would eliminate this prohibition, the exceptions, and this authority of the department. This bill would instead require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to make a specified report to the Fish and Game Commission on the status of bear populations, management, and related issues every 3 years. The bill would require the first report to be submitted on or before December 15, 2015, and would require the department, not later that December 15 of each year the report is submitted, to notify, by certified mail, the board of supervisors of each county affected by bear interactions with the general public, of public safety impacts or concerns, bear depredation permit requests, and economic impacts due to bear damage to the extent of those incidences or impacts, and of its recommendations to the commission. This bill would generally prohibit a person from using dogs to hunt, pursue, or molest bears, except when recommended to the Department of Fish and Wildlife by a vote of the board of supervisors of any affected county following a public hearing, as specified. The bill would require the commission to authorize the use of dogs under those circumstances. This bill would permit the use of one dog per hunter for the hunting of bears during open deer season, and the use of more than one dog per hunter during the open bear season except during the period when archery deer seasons or regular deer seasons are open. By imposing new duties on local public officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law authorizes the Fish and Game Commission to establish a hound tag program, imposing certain requirements on the licensure and use of hounds, as defined, to pursue mammals. For these purposes, existing law defines a hound as a dog used to pursue mammals
This bill would repeal this authorization.
(3) Under existing law, except as excluded, violations of the Fish and Game Code are misdemeanors.
By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
............................................................................................
Busch Bill
The Busch Bill was passed in 1958 giving the authority to have antlerless deer hunts to the County Boards of Supervisors in 37 of California’s 58 counties – and many of those 37 counties identified contain some of the state’s best deer hunting. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is required to notify the Boards of Supervisors of any planned antlerless hunts by Dec. 15 of each year. Once doing so, the Board of Supervisors of each county are then required to hold a public hearing to receive the information from DFG to justify the hunt, and to receive testimony from the public regarding the proposal. The process often ends at this point due to negative public perceptions and expressed opinions requesting that no antlerless hunts be allowed.
While good science supports the use of doe or antlerless hunts as a valid deer population management tool, and although these hunts provide for additional hunting opportunities, they can also be highly controversial. In many counties, emotions on the subject run high and popular public opinion will often not support the hunts. Thus, since the County Boards of Supervisors are elected public officials who must answer to their constituents, when the public sentiment is negative and in the majority, the Supervisors will often reject any proposed antlerless hunts.
According to Senior Wildlife Biologist and Deer Management Supervisor Craig Stowers, “Sound data and scientific justifications support holding such hunts. California’s deer population is now heavily skewed toward the female portion of the population, and amongst that group it is skewed toward older females. Until the time comes when DFG receives authority to offer these doe or antlerless hunts again, we will continue to see the pattern that has developed over the last 50 years.”
Columnist
Carrie Wilson is a 20-year CDFW veteran and an avid outdoor enthusiast, angler and hunter. She is a marine biologist with a strong background of professional experience working in both fisheries and wildlife management. An established award-winning outdoor writer, Carrie enjoys tackling the tough questions from the public and will be regularly tapping into the expertise of CDFW’s wildlife officers and many fisheries, wildlife and marine biologists to best cover all the topics.
The below bill AB 2205 ( Donnelly ) will be very easy for the counties to implement thanks to the passage of the Busch bill, this bill was passed in 1958 for counties to use for antlerless hunts, based on CDF&W science, this new bill will be of little difference, the counties and state can easily use the same guidelines and procedures, this should be an effortless transition, as this bill has been in place and in use for the last fifty six years.
The Busch bill was implemented because our government was aware of the fact that the counties of our state are diverse and the management decisions vary greatly statewide, they believed the individual counties should possess the power to govern based on their constituents needs. ( Below is a explanation of the Busch bill as described by Carrie Wilson a twenty year CDF&W biologist) ............................................................................................
Assembly Bill No. 2205
California Legislature—2013–14 Regular Session Introduced by Assembly Member Donnelly February 20, 2014
An act to amend Section 3960 of, to add Section 4756 to, to repeal Sections 3032, 3960.4, and 3960.6 of, and to repeal and add Section 3960.2 of, the Fish and Game Code, relating to mammals.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 2205, as introduced, Donnelly. Mammals: use of dogs to pursue bears and bobcats.
(1) Existing law, with specified exceptions, makes it unlawful to permit or allow a dog to pursue any bear, as defined, or bobcat at any time. Existing law authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to capture a dog not under the reasonable control of its owner or handler that is pursuing any bear or bobcat in violation of this prohibition or to capture or dispatch a dog inflicting injury or immediately threatening to inflict injury on any bear or bobcat at any time.
This bill would eliminate this prohibition, the exceptions, and this authority of the department. This bill would instead require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to make a specified report to the Fish and Game Commission on the status of bear populations, management, and related issues every 3 years. The bill would require the first report to be submitted on or before December 15, 2015, and would require the department, not later that December 15 of each year the report is submitted, to notify, by certified mail, the board of supervisors of each county affected by bear interactions with the general public, of public safety impacts or concerns, bear depredation permit requests, and economic impacts due to bear damage to the extent of those incidences or impacts, and of its recommendations to the commission. This bill would generally prohibit a person from using dogs to hunt, pursue, or molest bears, except when recommended to the Department of Fish and Wildlife by a vote of the board of supervisors of any affected county following a public hearing, as specified. The bill would require the commission to authorize the use of dogs under those circumstances. This bill would permit the use of one dog per hunter for the hunting of bears during open deer season, and the use of more than one dog per hunter during the open bear season except during the period when archery deer seasons or regular deer seasons are open. By imposing new duties on local public officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law authorizes the Fish and Game Commission to establish a hound tag program, imposing certain requirements on the licensure and use of hounds, as defined, to pursue mammals. For these purposes, existing law defines a hound as a dog used to pursue mammals
This bill would repeal this authorization.
(3) Under existing law, except as excluded, violations of the Fish and Game Code are misdemeanors.
By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
............................................................................................
Busch Bill
The Busch Bill was passed in 1958 giving the authority to have antlerless deer hunts to the County Boards of Supervisors in 37 of California’s 58 counties – and many of those 37 counties identified contain some of the state’s best deer hunting. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is required to notify the Boards of Supervisors of any planned antlerless hunts by Dec. 15 of each year. Once doing so, the Board of Supervisors of each county are then required to hold a public hearing to receive the information from DFG to justify the hunt, and to receive testimony from the public regarding the proposal. The process often ends at this point due to negative public perceptions and expressed opinions requesting that no antlerless hunts be allowed.
While good science supports the use of doe or antlerless hunts as a valid deer population management tool, and although these hunts provide for additional hunting opportunities, they can also be highly controversial. In many counties, emotions on the subject run high and popular public opinion will often not support the hunts. Thus, since the County Boards of Supervisors are elected public officials who must answer to their constituents, when the public sentiment is negative and in the majority, the Supervisors will often reject any proposed antlerless hunts.
According to Senior Wildlife Biologist and Deer Management Supervisor Craig Stowers, “Sound data and scientific justifications support holding such hunts. California’s deer population is now heavily skewed toward the female portion of the population, and amongst that group it is skewed toward older females. Until the time comes when DFG receives authority to offer these doe or antlerless hunts again, we will continue to see the pattern that has developed over the last 50 years.”
Columnist
Carrie Wilson is a 20-year CDFW veteran and an avid outdoor enthusiast, angler and hunter. She is a marine biologist with a strong background of professional experience working in both fisheries and wildlife management. An established award-winning outdoor writer, Carrie enjoys tackling the tough questions from the public and will be regularly tapping into the expertise of CDFW’s wildlife officers and many fisheries, wildlife and marine biologists to best cover all the topics.
Ignorance and not getting involved is the biggest enemy to a Houndsmen!
Re: We need to reach out to all the hunting groups
I know personally guys and gals in nv, wv, id, or, wa, nm, and co have called this weekend. Hopefully everyone in California is calling. Even if you sold out because of the bill please help.
Mike Beaudette
Re: We need to reach out to all the hunting groups
When will this bill be heard at the capitol and voted on?
Re: We need to reach out to all the hunting groups
The 29th, we are having a rally on the 21st at the West steps of the capital if you can't make PLEASE call the members of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife committee on that day.
Ignorance and not getting involved is the biggest enemy to a Houndsmen!
Return to “Legislative Issues”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests