HELP THE CALIFORNIA DFG HELP YOU AND DEFEAT HSUS

[Peter Meyer]

I see it pretty darn simple: we are at war with the HSUS legislatively and morally. I may be taking this too seriously but for me it goes beyond just hunting with hounds. They are trying to impose their will upon us and infringe on our freedoms we enjoy as Americans. Getting the increase in the limit will be a victory in just one battle of many more to come, including the big one, a statewide initiative banning hounds or bear hunting altogether that the HSUS is pushing for. The HSUS could care less if more bears are taken. Their ultimate goal is to destroy your way of life. They already hate us. They will attack any proposals that advance or enhance bear hunting any running hounds with a tenacity that our side seems to lack. I despise their tactics and propaganda but there is something to be learned there. So I'll just lay it out there come hell or high water: Not supporting the increase whatever your reasons is treason.
-Pete "Audentes fortuna juvat" - "Fortune favors the bold"

[fox hunter]

if you think your not in for a fight with the hsus anytime they think they have a chance your nuts why not get behind dfg and take something for a change this is a step in the rite direction and a blow to the hippies ego the hunting comunity of ca has always played it to safe just roll over and give them something insted of standing up and kicking the hippies in the bag and take something for a change

saticefaction is the death of desire

[outlaw13]

if you think your not in for a fight with the hsus anytime they think they have a chance your nuts why not get behind dfg and take something for a change this is a step in the rite direction and a blow to the hippies ego the hunting comunity of ca has always played it to safe just roll over and give them something insted of standing up a kicking the hippies in the bag and take something for a change

saticefaction is the death of desire

+1

Thank you I am glad to see that someone else understands. Imagine that houndsmen actually say "Don't raise the quota I think the California DFG is stupid and they don't know what they are doing because i personally don't see what it's going to do for me." First off if you think like this you are very narrow minded and selfish. So what if it is not going to benefit you personally, It is a broader scheme that is going to benefit hound hunting in california. A step forward towards more hunting opportunity is a hell of a lot better than a step backwards. WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND. By standing up against gaining more hunting opportunity is just the same as getting into bed with the HSUS.

[Dale T]

Imagine that houndsmen actually say "Don't raise the quota I think the California DFG is stupid and they don't know what they are doing because i personally don't see what it's going to do for me."

Nobody ever said that F&G was "stupid and they don't know what they are doing" or that " I personally don't see what it's going to do for me", what was said was the only guys that I can see that are going to benifit by the quota being raised are the guides (not knocking the guides but the are only a small number of the houndsmen in this state) my question on this has always been What is this quota change going to do for us houndsmen in this state.

A step forward towards more hunting opportunity is a hell of a lot better than a step backwards.

Explain to me how having less bears the next year to hunt is going to benifit any houndsmen in this state and how would it be a step forward? And how would not supporting F&G's proposal would be a step backwards? We have one of the longest bear seasons in the U.S., and can still be in the woods month after the season ends now.

All we are to F&G is a management tool and a pay check, they made it clear to me when the would not respond to CHC request to return the $5,000. given to them by HSUS, so who are they willing to work with not us, and the last I heard they never did respond to CHC's request.

Don't get me wrong I think it would be great to "GET" instead of "GIVE" for a change but I think there a lot of other F&G Regs that need to be looked at that would benifit "ALL" houndsmen in this state.

In my life I have found that a win for a win isn't always a win!

[livetohunt]

I was thinking about this last night and I would like to know for the ones on here that are against this change cant you tell me is it because you think the HSUS will push to stop bear hunting?

Or that you feel the bear population can NOT support the increase?


Or is it that you dislike our DFG to the point where your not wanting to support them?

[Dale T]

Hey Chris

For me it's many things, I don't think that raising the quota is going to benifit the houndsmen of this state, it will protray as the killers of the cute little bears just like when we lost out Lion season, and part of it is because of the HSUS threats but not all of it, I've always found that I can deal with a snake as long as I never forget there nothing more then a snake (HSUS) and write now I don't know who the snakes are with F&G but I know there there!

[livetohunt]

Thanks Dale, now I ask you this were we portrayed that way when it was raised from 1500 to 1700 just a couple yrs ago. Im not trying to start any fight in this I want the info I want to know what is at the root with everyone on this.
As for the HSUS I dont feel any change is going to stop them if it get raised or if it stays the same they want this fight they have been working towards this fight and there is nothing we can do to keep from having this fight. All of you that say why do we want to push things with the HSUS are dreaming. I think there are things that we can not control and sitting on a computer and fighting with each other is doing no good at all. What I am doing right now is getting all the info I can find and Im going to write letters to every one down in Sac that I can find. I think this fight is coming and all we can do is try to be one step ahead of them. Im not only talking about this sport as a way of life and the fact that I want my kids and grandkids to have the right to have this as there way of life. But I am also talking to them about money and as we all know money is one thing they do care about in this state. Such as in 2009 they made $1,102,051.90 just in bear tag sales, Im also going to talk about the other money raised from bear hunting. Such as food, gas, ammo, camping and supplies, hotels, travel. We need to show them that bear hunters are not some backwoods folks were are a multi million dollar economic boost. I think if everyone that spent the time on here fighting would write letters, send emails and make calls then we might just have a chance in this fight that I for one know is coming.

[outlaw13]

[quote="Dale T
Explain to me how having less bears the next year to hunt is going to benifit any houndsmen in this state and how would it be a step forward? And how would not supporting F&G's proposal would be a step backwards? We have one of the longest bear seasons in the U.S., and can still be in the woods month after the season ends now.

Don't get me wrong I think it would be great to "GET" instead of "GIVE" for a change but I think there a lot of other F&G Regs that need to be looked at that would benifit "ALL" houndsmen in this state. quote]

2. Fact: The Department is tasked with managing the bear population and has done so successfully for decades; in the last 30 years, the bear population has gone from approximately 4000 to well over 40,000, and the bear distribution has not only been restored to its historic levels, but has extended into areas where no black bear had previously existed. During this time, the quota has doubled without any detriment to either the growth in population or expansion in distribution.

And with this being said can you tell me how having a few more bears killed is really going to hurt anyone.

and you are right there are a lot of other regs that need to be looked at that would benifit all houndsmen too but this is the current one that needs support from real houndsmen.

[Dale T]

outlaw13

The HSUS main concern is not the overall bear population, what they do care about are individual bears, thats why Percell has already stated if the quota is raised they will put it on the ballot, so by raising the quota to the 2500 that I believe F&G is pushing for will just like thoughing gas a the fire that HSUS is already tending.

And my 1st question still has not been answered, which leads me to believe know body has a answer!
How is raising the quota going to improve things for Houndsmen in this state?

[Peter Meyer]

It will help us because for the first time a few years a proposal favorable to us will not be tabled by pressure from attorney Bill Yeates or tabled because of CEQA issues. A step forward for us is a huge shove back against groups like the HSUS, IDA, Big Wild life, and the Sierra Club. Then again a victory for us may cause the HSUS to redouble their efforts at stamping out our way of life. Doesn't matter. There is a fight coming and it is going to be on voter petitions, tv commercials, and signs in front yards saying " YES ON whatever damn number their propostion may be".To be able to show a record of the Fish and Game Commission supporting and advancing bear hunting is leverage. The HSUS is a multi-million dollar propaganda machine. The battle is going to be an uphill one for sure. Ever heard this before?: it is all about winning their hearts and minds. We may have to convince California voters that hounds and bear hunting are a treasured American tradition as well as valid method of population control. You should watch F&G's biologist Marc Kenyon's presentation on video from the April 7 Commission meeting. I am sure it will clear some things up. People need to know the truth about the HSUS. No matter how much the HSUS denies it, they support fringe groups like Peta and the ALF. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that some of the tens of millions of dollars the HSUS collects in donations each year trickles down to these extremist groups? Some of which the FBI has classified as domestic terrorists. It sounds like something that should be looked into if you ask me. Remember these people hate you, what you do, how you do it, and what you stand for. -Pete

"Audentes fortuna juvat" - "Fortune favors the bold."

[RIFLEMAN]

Cassandra,

Until we as houndsmen can get along, the CHC should be neutral (which they are at the moment)

Sorry, but I don't think CHC can wait quite that long if you take my meaning!

I've heard from 95% of the houndsmen asked, they DO NOT SUPPORT raising the quota. If you go to many different events, or go hunting in different areas like I do, and come across lots of different houndsmen, from all walks of life, the opinion becomes pretty clear.

Put simply, those opinions are worthless unless the 95% of houndsmen you have spoken with let CHC's leadership know of their position...assuming they are CHC members, of course. Consider the fact that CHC is no different than the California Legislature or US Congress; once elected, the leadership of each governing body is going to act in a manner that they deem to be in the best interest of their constituents. They do not ask for permission nor contact every member of their constituency to ask their opinion regarding any matter up for debate. Rather, they rely upon their constituents to inform themselves of the issues and make their voices heard if they feel strongly enough about their opinion to do so. CHC's leadership provided an indication of the proposals and how they could benefit CHC's members in our publications, and while there was a lot of positive response to the proposals, not a single person contacted the author with an opposing perspective. Granted, this is small sampling of CHC's membership, but it is no more anecdotal than the sampling of opinions you have collected. Accordingly, CHC's leadership is no less authorized to act in a manner it deems appropriate than your local representative is when they aren't overwhelmed with opposition by their constituency. That's the nature of a representative form of government.

Just because the 5 or 6 people that go to CHC meetings want it changed, doesn't make them the "dominant opinion."

Stating that only five or six people attend the meetings is very disingenuous, and if you would ever attend a meeting, you would know this...I don't say that to be insulting. Rather, I point it out as a suggestion that we stick with what we know are facts and not try to disparage an organization, opinion, or means of coming to an official position with misstatements and falsehoods of this kind. That's a tactic best left to the anti hunters.

Also since when isn't the DFG freinds with the HSUS? Why is it they accept money from HSUS, and even when we told them that if it was given back, that we'd not only match but double what they recieved from HSUS, they still declined?

Again, please remember that DFG is a large agency made up of several factions within several branches. They are not of one opinion or perspective. Now realize that it was a single person in DFG that accepted the money. It was done without the knowledge or permission of DFG's leadership nor the Cal-Tip governing board that administers the program that the HSUS donated money to. Regardless of the intentions of the one individual, or what motivated them to accept the money, it was not a decision that was made or condoned by the entirety or even the majority of DFG from everything I have heard regarding the matter.

Since when wouldn't they sell us out so that it's less work for them?

Um, it would also mean a helluva lot less money for them, and the money greatly exceeds the "work" required to manage and police the hunting and fishing communities. We overwhelmingly fund the science, and partially fund the enforcement performed by the DFG. As I said before, this conspiracy has less factual basis than the theories about the Second Shooter in Dallas in 1963 or the little Martian tourists visiting the lovely desert of New Mexico.

[RIFLEMAN]

Lori,

Josh,
sorry to cause such a stink, but I did'nt think you would mind answering some questions beings you posted this.

No, don't worry about it. I don't mind a bit.

You stated to Casandra that you did not say anything about CHC being involved in backing this. Is that not what your post is about? It starts out by saying help the DFG.

I stand by this statement. CHC is not involved. I made no reference to CHC in my original post. I posted the topic as myself with my personal handle, RIFLEMAN. My affiliation with CHC does not prevent me from expressing my own opinion or advocating things on my own behalf, but I am mindful of the need to distinguish my comments and/or omit reference to CHC as appropriate. I did so in this case.

And to answer your question about Wayne Pacelli, yes there was an article in the Sacramento Bee last year and he said that he would put it on the ballot if the quota was raised, he also said that he had won before and that he would win again.

As you know, I was following the matter very closely then, as was COHA, and never saw any such statement by Pacelle. During 2010, he made a public statement about putting an initiative on the ballot to end all bear hunting if GPS was legalized, and another statement indicating his desire to ban all hound hunting of bears. Similarly, a reference to banning bear hunting if the quota was increased is nowhere to be found anywhere on the Internet following my search tonight. If you post proof of otherwise, I will owe you a lunch.

As far as do I think that the DFG knows what they are doing by bringing this up? You bet! I think they know exactly what they are doing.

Conjecture and speculation! This shouldn't be a basis for your opinion. Let's stick to facts, pretty please.

They do not like hound hunters and never will, they think we are all outlaws. Just like in there show Wild Justice, whenever it talks about bear poachers it shows a bear on a dog box. Tell me that is not singeling us out!

1. Just to be clear, the show is produced, owned, and aired by National Geographic, not DFG.
2. While the Enforcement Branch certainly owns responsibility for the antagonistic tone that some of the wardens assume within the series, DFG does not own the creative license for Wild Justice.
3. Enforcement is not responsible for the creation of the proposals, the Wildlife Branch is. The Wildlife Branch is made up of the biologists.
4. If DFG wanted bear hunting ended, it could have easily done so last year; they could have instigated a lawsuit by the anti hunting organizations by pushing the 2010 proposals forward despite some concerns about CEQA compliance. Instead, they asked the Commission to table the proposals.

If this is your only evidence to justify your argument that the entire Department despises us and is intentionally using these proposals to provoke a ballot initiative, then you still have a lot of fact-finding to do to prove your case. But let me save you some time: the facts to support such a claim simply don't exist.

I have been involved in CHC for many many years and will stay involved as I cherish this sport and want to see it continue for the younger generations of my family. I am not one who trys to cause trouble I am trying to be smart and not affraid to voice my opinion.

I applaud your sentiment; I wish more people felt the same level of loyalty to the preservation of the tradition as you do. I also applaud your willingness to voice your opinion, and think that debate about such matters is a healthy thing. Apathy is far more dangerous than dissent.

[RIFLEMAN]

Dale,

You still haven't explained to us how raising the quota is going to help us houndsmen in California

And my 1st question still has not been answered, which leads me to believe know body has a answer!How is raising the quota going to improve things for Houndsmen in this state?

Actually, I answered your question before you even asked it; I indicated how the proposals would benefit hound hunters in my very first post within this topic. For your reference, here is what I wrote:
6. Increasing the quota/in-season early closure mechanism will increase hunter opportunity and also benefit hound hunters by extending the time when more than one dog per hunter can be used.
7. Aligning the deer and bear archery seasons so that they run concurrently rather than consecutively will benefit bowhunters and also reduce the amount of time that hounds must stay out of the hills and woods.

I also explained the implications of the proposals in The Track and Trail Tribune. I deduce that you read The Tribune given your frequent reference to one of the points I made in the article involving "a cup of coffee."

If the referenced explanations above aren't clear enough or still don't sufficiently explain the benefits, let me know specifically what questions you have so that I may provide specific elaboration.

and know body can explain how this would make things any better for us houndsmen when you can still be in the woods with your hounds until they run us out with the dog closures long after the last Sunday in December.

1. Not everybody runs cat, fox, and coon with their bear dogs.
2. Bear hunters naturally want to spend more time running bear.
3. If your bear dog runs a bear outside of the bear season through no fault of your own, you may still find yourself in some legal trouble. Statistically speaking, the longer the bear season, the less likely the risk of running bear out of bear season.

Explain to me how having less bears the next year to hunt is going to benifit any houndsmen in this state and how would it be a step forward?

Why do you think there will be less bear the following year? This assumption is flawed in that it ignores both the compensatory mortality dynamic that I already explained and the harvest-to-population data DFG has been amassing for decades.

they made it clear to me when the would not respond to CHC request to return the $5,000. given to them by HSUS,...and the last I heard they never did respond to CHC's request.

Actually, the Department (specifically, the individual who accepted the donation from HSUS) did respond to CHC via a letter. This was the same format that we sent the offer in.

so who are they willing to work with not us,

Wrong. DFG works with us in a number of ways, some known to you and others not. Some examples are included in recent articles in The Track and Trail Tribune.

I would think that the best thing that could happen for the houndsmen in this state is the Bear population to continue to go up, then when the tree huggers go to the mountains to camp and have a bear in there camp every night the fish and game will need us!

While this may be true, it is very self-serving and short-sighted. It is the job of DFG, and in the strategic best interests of both bear and bear hunters that these types of conflicts be prevented as much as possible.

[outlaw13]

I think all questions have been answered now. RIFLEMAN, I thank you for the time you have dedicated into this post making everyone including me more educated as to what the facts actually are.

[BOSS HOG]

-rifleman said
"Actually, I answered your question before you even asked it; I indicated how the proposals would benefit hound hunters in my very first post within this topic. For your reference, here is what I wrote:
6. Increasing the quota/in-season early closure mechanism will increase hunter opportunity and also benefit hound hunters by extending the time when more than one dog per hunter can be used.
7. Aligning the deer and bear archery seasons so that they run concurrently rather than consecutively will benefit bowhunters and a"



since were " sticking to the facts" the majority of the seasons already are concurent

The 2010 statewide archery bear season started Aug. 21 which was the same as the following archery deer seasons b1, b2, b3, b4,b5,b6,d3,d4,d5,d6,d7,d8,d9,d10,c1,c2,c3,c4,x1,x2,x3a,x3b,x4,x5a,x5b,x6a,x6b,x7a,x7b,x8,x9a,x9b,x9c,x10,x12
you can check for your self http://www.arwhead.com/calhunt/deer.html

so... i guess that only leaves #6 and as far as im concerned if your dogs cant get r done in the 3 months that the general season is open then your better off sticking to the archery season

my point is theres other things that "we" as houndsmen could be fighting for that would help us more that what is being fought for like gps or tree switches or larger training zones or a BEAR TRAINING SEASON , and if our bear population is doing so good i say leave it and let it continue to grow soon we will have excellent bear hunting and maby there will be a few left for my grandchildren to hunt......