Ca. Hunters Read Important info on tree Switches & GPS!!!

[Everlast]

There have been whispers that our ridiculous law against GPS and tree switches may be getting ready to be overturned. See the attached link. Looks like it is on the agenda for removal. Appreciate anymore info anyone has. See page #4 of the 8 page pdf file.


http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/new/2010/265isor.pdf

[Grzyadms4x4]

Wow, good luck, it definitely looks good. Now if you could only get your lion season back.

-Zach

[houndhavoc]

Im pretty sure all this was put off until the 2012 season. Since everything is set for 2010 you wont get a change until then. If you are wanting these laws changed you might look into these issues a little more regularly and be pro active on supporting some Local orgs who help fight for your hunting rights.

[Everlast]

Agreed. It looked to me like it was going to happen sometime between 2010 and 2012. FYI, I am checking on ALL hound hunting issues regularly with what resources I have available to me. Thanks for your input though.

[lepcur]

Read the regs. nothing has changed.

[Everlast]

It looked to me like it was going to happen sometime between 2010 and 2012

[Tim Lockwood]

From what I was told by some of the active members of COHA was that we needed the wardens support to get it passed. The president of COHA Bill Gaines had a meeting with the warden chief Nancy Foley and she had some idea that if she supported the change that she would want us to have to register our collars with dfg. I highly doubt that we will get this awful law off the books. Look up Nancy Foley's name on google and read about her ties with the HSUS and you'll see why.

[norcalkemmer]

We need to get her out of there.

[DirtAddict]

We need to get her out of there.

I agree.

Here's DFG's focus, straight from their website:
"The Department of Fish and Game maintains native fish, wildlife, plant species and natural communities for their intrinsic and ecological value and their benefits to people. This includes habitat protection and maintenance in a sufficient amount and quality to ensure the survival of all species and natural communities. The department is also responsible for the diversified use of fish and wildlife including recreational, commercial, scientific and educational uses."

HSUS is basically an animal welfare advocacy group that focuses on how people treat animals, and by the way they have their own views on that which in many cases are politcal/emotional and not linked to solid science. Not saying that's all bad in a general sense, but it has nothing to do with managing a healthy habitat for commercial or recreational use. Considering their stated views on hunting, pet ownership, etc., that fly contrary to even the current legal uses of our land and wildlife resources, how can the DFG knowingly take funding from them? Isn't this a conflict of interest?

Do the citizens of California have a say in who holds this position? If so, I'd like to find out how we could influence the DFG to replace Nancy Foley with someone who makes decisions based on solid, scientifically supported, management practices. Ms. Foley has linked the DFG financially to a lobby group with an agenda that has nothing to do with DFG's mission, period. Her credibility seems tainted in my opinion.

On top of this, regardless what you think about my statements above, it's not in question that we still live in a democracy and as such we have a say in who represents us in government. I wonder if you could really argue with the statement that Nancy Foley does not represent the views of the majority law abiding citizens who rely on the DFG to manage our ecological resources in a responsible manner. We support this dept. financially through tags, licenses, etc. and should have a say in the matter.

We can continue to play nice, but if we are not getting anywhere and our views are not represented, then a different approach seems to be warranted.