BigGameHoundsmen.com

California Fish and Game took another five grand from the HSUS for the new Anti-Poaching Action Network. Unbelievable. More later. -Pete

Pete,

The California Fish and Game Commission has never taken money from HSUS.

In truth, it is the Department of Fish and Game's Enforcement Branch that has accepted the donation from HSUS for the third consecutive year.

rifleman you must be a cop, blind or a plain ol dipshit your always defending those that want to end our pursuit of happeyness

Fox Hunter. Rifleman sure does push Fish and Game awful hard. I think you are right. He is somehow connected with them. I can admire him though cause he believes in a cause and doesnt back down from a fight. Just wish he was on the hound hunters side instead of the antis.

WTF? Rifleman was correct in that the commission didn't actually accept the money. He is definitely not a law enforcement official. I know him personally and although I sometimes disagree with him and him with me at least we respect each other. Someone once said that discretion is the better part of valor. When it comes to dealing with the commission, sometimes, in fact most times, it is better to try to articulate your passion in terms a politician can understand. Threats will get you nowhere. If you have ever been to a California Department of Fish and Game Commission meeting you would obviously know who I call "The Angry Fisherman". Everytime he speaks the Commissioners either roll their eyes, take a bathroom break, or shuffle paperwork. You would also notice the game wardens present, acting as security, posture change and focus narrow to "The Angry Fisherman". His passion is evident. Is he really effecting change? Or is he setting his cause back? Rifleman does more for California Houndsmen than you jerks ever could. Now I'll shut up because I am on the way to the memorial for Boone Shockley, a legendary California houndsman that probably forgot more about hounds than you haters would ever hope to learn. -Pete Meyer

Pete you may be right I don't know the guy. Go back and look at his post through out the years. Every time someone has a complaint against CF&G Rifleman jumps down their throat and tells everyone how wonderful the CF&G are. If you read my comment you saw I said I respected him for his determination. Nowhere did I say he was a bad person. I only criticized what I feel are his beliefs.I still believe he is wrong to defend CF&G in anyway shape or form. You can't compromise with an entity that strongly believes in the defeat of houndsmen and other form of hunting. Compromise hasn't worked in the political arena, in the war against terrorism, and wont work with CF&G. I am racking my brain and cant find any time where Rifleman has publicaly denounced CF&G on this forum. The only post I find are him attacking people for their complaints about CF&G and suggesting we should all compromise with them. I will strongly oppose this view point to simply co-exist and not make them our enemies. CF&G are the houndsmen's enemies and I will even go so far as to say they are EVERY hunters enemy. The whole agency needs to be fired and started fresh. Hope this clears things up Pete.

Gentlemen,

Riflemen is the current president for California Houndsmen for Conservation. (2nd time, not consecutive)
He is very tenacious and does his job well...

Riflemen, does an outstanding job representing every houndsmen in California, I cannot speak for him but I can definitely suport his actions. DFG cannot be considered our enemies regardless of what some of you may have experienced or heard...

It's unfortuante that barriers have been established and misconceptions have been placed upon the hound community. Riflemen, is a houndsmen and he has established very strong relationships with organizations that represnt every hunter and houndsmen.

I myself am gratefull that he has committed so much of his personal time to lead and represent so many of us.

We will not get anywhere by adding fuel to the fire, communication and education is the key to continue building ties or strengthening the relationships already in place.

I can only say if you want to be heard, ask yourself what can you do for your hunting rights and for your hounds...

Come to our next CHC meeting and volunteer your time.

DFG cannot be considered our enemies regardless of what some of you may have experienced or heard...

Fish and Game may not be our enemies, but they sure cannot be considered our friends or even on our side either, the way they take HSUS money, the way they portray houndsmen on Wild Justice, and the houndsmen harassment at every opportunity.

Yeager I will have to disagree with you also. Fish and Game are the enemy of every houndsman/houndswoman. You are right that houndsmen need to band together. The problem is the same that every organization faces. Lots of differant personalities and ideas. I come from a law enforcement background and have talked with these so called friendly wardens from Fresno to the Oregon border. When they were not aware that I had hounds they spoke freely. The enforcement branch of fish and game are not the houndsmens friend. With the exception of one Warden Holly Spada from Madera they gave me the impression that they believe ALL houndsmen are poachers because that is what they are tought. If you dont believe me spend some time around wardens Duane Little, Brian Boyde (Nor Cal) or Warden Darvisia (Fresno). The biologist however understand that the houndsmen are a valuable tool in game management. I still believe that trying to negotiate or trying to "get along" with them is not the answer. This type of thinking has never worked for anyone any where. As far as CHC goes I will not be associated with it and this is why. The first interaction I had with them was when the president at the time walked up to me with a mouth full of tobacco and a big confederate belt buckle. I decided to overlook this and was going to join anyway. I paid a babysitter and took my wife to the dinner in Red Bluff. At the door the person whom I bought tickets from was drunk to the point he would be concidered drunk in public by law enforcement. With my wife at my side I ask him where I could buy raffle tickets. His reply "just grab one of the girls with the short skirt and the big tits". My wife and I left. If this is the image that the CHC is willing to put forth to the public no thanks. There are much better organizations such as "The U.S. Sportsmans Alliance" that I will give my money to.

BEAR HUNTER wrote: If you dont believe me spend some time around wardens Duane Little, Brian Boyde (Nor Cal).

Those two are probably the worst but i would also like to throw out Bob Orange who is now retired Williams and Kyle Kroll. If you run in to these turds be prepared to be harassed for having a dog box. Never had a good interaction with any of them and I have never been ticketed eithor.

Bear Hunter, I am sincerely sorry that you and your wife had a bad experience at a CHC function. I can't blame you for walking away after your wife was exposed to such degrading vulgarity. It's unfortunate that this experience has tainted your opinion of the organization.

CHC is a houndsmen organization and staff'd by volunteers who represent other houndsmen. We need all the support we can get and welcome new faces and individuals who want to make a change. We enjoy hunting with our hounds and when threatened we need to stand together and confront our immediate threat, i.e. (PETA/ HSUS).

I invite you to attend once again, one of our meetings and functions, because we do need you and all Hound Hunters. I cannot make excuses for that one individuals behavior and I am sure that if sober, he would not had acted in such a way especially in your wives presence.

As for the gentlemen chewing tobacco, unfortunately, I'm guilty of such an addicting habit also...

Back to the Wardens...Yes, unfortunately, perhaps a few may have stepped out of line, however, I have yet to experience a negative encounter nor wittnessed inapproriate behavior.
I will however, continue to respect their position and strive for mutual respect. I do not want to be judged or mistreated merely because I am toting a Dog Box or prefer a Hound verses a poodle.

Therefore, as I said it before we do need to reach a common ground and render mutual respect to educate and strengthen relationships to preserve our heritage, not just for hound hunting but all hunting...

Besides, the $20.00 a year for membership dues is not a bad deal, for what you get. Most importantly, it's going towards the organization which is already established and has time after time stood it's ground against rediculous oppositions to encrouch upon our hunting privileges.

Happy Hunting,
Yeager

fox hunter,

rifleman you must be a cop, blind or a plain ol dipshit your always defending those that want to end our pursuit of happeyness

Nowhere did I defend anything or anybody. I was correcting a misstatement by pointing out that it was an element of the Department of Fish and Game rather than the Fish and Game Commission that accepted the donation. I believe in perpetuating the truth, not falsehoods, rumors, or myths. If you cannot see the distinction, then there's truly nothing more I can say.

Bear Hunter,

Just wish he was on the hound hunters side instead of the antis.

Saying that I side with the anti hunters rather than houndsmen is ridiculous and you know it.

Every time someone has a complaint against CF&G Rifleman jumps down their throat and tells everyone how wonderful the CF&G are.

Please cite some of my past statements where I said the Department was wonderful. Actually, forget about citing some. Find me one. Hint: You'll be looking for a long time, because I have never said any such thing.

I am racking my brain and cant find any time where Rifleman has publicaly denounced CF&G on this forum.

Here's a few examples:
1. I have referred to the behavior of some of the wardens on Wild Justice as antagonistic.
2. I pasted the Press Release that I wrote that was sent out nationally indicating CHC's concerns with the Department's acceptance of the initial donation from the HSUS.
3. I said that I did not, "trust the CADFG any more than I trust the DMV; CADFG is a government agency, and no less immune to the fallibilities and flaws that any agency is fraught with...inefficiency, incompetence, and undue political influence in their decision-making process being among them."
4. I have characterized the opinion of some wardens towards houndsmen as being jaded.

What you won't find in my comments are emotional statements, stereotypes, logical fallacies, generalizations, or assertions that can't be proven or have no basis in fact or logic.

The only post I find are him attacking people for their complaints about CF&G and suggesting we should all compromise with them...You can't compromise with an entity that strongly believes in the defeat of houndsmen and other form of hunting. Compromise hasn't worked in the political arena, in the war against terrorism, and wont work with CF&G...I will strongly oppose this view point to simply co-exist and not make them our enemies.

Where have I suggested that we compromise with Fish and Game? To compromise is to give up an aspect or measure of one's beliefs, principles, or intentions. I have not compromised with the Department, nor have I lobbied for any such thing. However, compromise is not co-existence. They are two entirely different things. Fostering an, "us vs. them" mentality will get us nowhere.

CF&G are the houndsmen's enemies and I will even go so far as to say they are EVERY hunters enemy. The whole agency needs to be fired and started fresh.

The enforcement branch of fish and game are not the houndsmens friend. With the exception of one Warden Holly Spada from Madera they gave me the impression that they believe ALL houndsmen are poachers because that is what they are tought. If you dont believe me spend some time around wardens Duane Little, Brian Boyde (Nor Cal) or Warden Darvisia (Fresno).

The biologist however understand that the houndsmen are a valuable tool in game management.

One the one hand, you complain that the Department is our enemy and everyone needs to be fired, but then you actually make a distinction (and correctly so, as a first step to getting closer to the truth) between the staff of the Enforcement Branch and the Wildlife Branch. Is the entire Department against us or not in your opinion? Even if, for the sake of argument only, every single warden was truly out to get us, aren't the biologists in the Wildlife Branch redeeming in value at least?

At the same time, you complain that they paint us all as poachers with the same broad brush, and yet you paint every Department employee as the enemy and all wardens as being against us. Do you not recognize the hypocrisy there? Just as you wisely point out that there should be a distinction made between legitimate houndsmen and poachers, shouldn't there also be a distinction made between biased wardens and unbiased wardens?

I still believe that trying to negotiate or trying to "get along" with them is not the answer. This type of thinking has never worked for anyone any where.

What strategy, specifically, do you suggest? If "getting along" and trying to negotiate with the Department doesn't make sense to you, then what does exactly? How do you propose that houndsmen interact with the agency with the authority to determine if, when, and how we can hunt...call them the enemy and then try to ignore them? Do you not see the flaw in anything other than continuing to work with the Department to further our interests?

As far as CHC goes I will not be associated with it and this is why. The first interaction I had with them was when the president at the time walked up to me with a mouth full of tobacco and a big confederate belt buckle. I decided to overlook this and was going to join anyway. I paid a babysitter and took my wife to the dinner in Red Bluff. At the door the person whom I bought tickets from was drunk to the point he would be concidered drunk in public by law enforcement. With my wife at my side I ask him where I could buy raffle tickets. His reply "just grab one of the girls with the short skirt and the big tits". My wife and I left. If this is the image that the CHC is willing to put forth to the public no thanks.

With respect to the person with tobacco and a confederate belt buckle, I am familiar with him, but he has not been CHC's President. With respect to the other individual, I do not blame you for leaving, and I am very sorry that you (and your wife especially) had to experience this unacceptable behavior or language. Neither this person nor this behavior is representative of CHC's values or image. CHC is also made up of law enforcement officers, business owners, a retired engineer with a PhD from Stanford, corporate executives, and so on.

It is important to point out that CHC is not a social club, it is a cause. We are affiliated with each other only because of our passion for, and dedication to, the wonderful tradition of houndhunting. We are not all alike socially, but we look beyond what makes us different and stand shoulder to should to defend the one thing we have most in common.

We come in all shapes and sizes, and our clothing style, manners, education, etc run the spectrum just like any other collection of people. I personally don't like every single person I've met at a CHC event and I don't like every member of the organization. But I don't let my personal dislike for, or disagreement with, some individuals affiliated with CHC be the reason for not supporting the organization...as a houndsman, it is in my own self-interest to protect what I love by supporting the organization that is dedicated to protecting what I love. Wouldn't you agree?

There are much better organizations such as "The U.S. Sportsmans Alliance" that I will give my money to.

As CHC donates thousands of dollars to USSA, I will not try to talk you out of donating to them. However, no one does more for hound hunters in California than CHC. I would hope that you might reconsider the situation and join CHC. With respect to your disagreement with some of the positions of CHC, keep in mind that you will be able to more effectively influence our positions and actions as a member engaged in the fight with us rather than a spectator standing on the sidelines.

Give it some thought.