California SB1221

[billrquimby]

 

"It would be hard to capture, but I have thought if a video could be made of a coyote taking down a helpless fawn, and a pack of wolves devouring a cow elk in labor with a calf and show it to the public a few minds might be changed about these walking stomachs. The anti's had no problem showing puppies in leg hold traps when that issue came up for a vote."

Our enemies don't care that predation in nature is much crueler that anything a human hunter does to his prey. To them, wolves pulling down a cow elk, even one in labor, is "natural" and an event they would love to watch. Ditto for coyotes ripping fawns apart. They would never support government killing coyotes and lions so that hunters can have more deer,elk, and antelope to hunt, even if not doing so would result in the loss of entire populations of game animals.

Bill Quimby

• Like This
  

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  

[azslim]

Yep, but that is about 10% of the population, and 10% of us believe in hunting as a conservation tool, it's they 80% in the middle that vote with their hearts based on a 30 second commercial that we need to swing to our side.

[bonuspointjohn]

Considering what's going on in California, how smart would it be to pursue a high-profile, large scale predator control effort right now?

 

This is exactly what some have been urging AGFD to do. I'm skeptical that any aerial gunning of coyotes or intensified lion removal using hounds could have a significant effect on deer populations unless conducted at a level that would be prohibitively expensive and politically impossible. What has been shown to work are localized removals right before the fawning season. After a couple months, coyotes and lions from adjacent areas migrate in to fill the vacuum and you're back where you started except that fawns and lambs are a couple of months along and have a much better chance of survival. Research from actual experience has shown that localized removals have been proven effective for jump-starting low populations of ungulates. We would be wise to keep predator control efforts limited to what research has shown is effective. Otherwise we risk losing one of the few effective tools we have at our disposal while our wildlife continues struggling in this drought.

 

Given that the public does not - and maybe never will - fully appreciate the role hunting plays in maintaining a successful wildlife program, a major predator removal campaign would just be asking to get a ballot iniitiave for predator protection down our throats. (It's been said that as California goes, so goes the nation - eventually.) And if the legislature tips Democratic, as it has before, that would become even easier to do. If such a proposition ever reached the ballot, I have no doubt it would pass with the help of a press sympathetic to what they'd see as a "reform" measure.

 

Demanding large-scale predator control to restore hunting opportunities to what they were 25 years ago works well for demagogues looking to rally hunters around a cause or an organization, but it isn't playing our cards very smartly. I hope certain people are paying attention to what's going on in California and using their heads. Arizona isn't California, at least not yet, but it isn't Utah either.

 

as you and I talked Larry, there is no easy solution. Antelope and sheep fawns survive within 6 weeks. Elk fawns do well a little longer than that. Mule deer fawns however are susceptible for up to 6 months. Even the strategic removals will have those holes filled in a short period of time. Combine drought and a reluctance to do anything that the public will view as distasteful and you have the result of mule deer fawns getting hammered. They are placing us between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The passing of night hunting where the predator base is doing a number on mule deer is one of the few keys that are out there..... having a concentrated effort that does not involve the AZGFD is also a solution. The department gets whacked by the other 10% who want the natural way, so their hands are tied, but with our hunting licenses we can make a difference... ain't saying... just saying...

[donniedent]

Audsley,

 

Interesting post. I wholeheartedly disagree with most of what you said but interesting all the same.

 

The fact is aerial gunning has been going on in 5bn for quite a while and in 10 for a while as well, not sure exactly how long but it matters not. I've never heard any complaints about it. Not from local residents, not from news stations and not from the antis. I am one that has suggested aerial gunning for coyotes in region 4. Its not to provide more hunting opportunities, its to save a deer herd. We haven't lost hunting opportunites in region 4, or anywhere else in the state, to predators. The changes to tag numbers statewide has been to comply with the commissions change in required buck/doe ratios, not because of predators. Coyotes don't kill the same deer we hunt, they kill fawns and they are doing a great job of it.

 

Call it what you like but that fact is we have a serious coyotes problem in this state. I for one am inclined to push for what's right, not for what is popular. I personally don't think the general public has the same perception of coyotes vs mountain lions. I think the general public has a very different view of coyotes because of the issues we are having right here in the valley. Nobody is talking about aerial gunning lions. Game and fish evidently felt comfortable enough to allow daylong hunts for lions and multiple bag limits and they have always been very careful about public perception. Their aversion to "largescale" coyote control is affected some by public perception but honestly has more to do with cost than what the public thinks. Yes, I think it is wise to take a careful approach to these matters but it is cowardly to avoid the issue altogether for fear of negative attention. Our muledeer herds are suffering not only from drought but from growing coyote populations.

 

I love this one. "Demanding large-scale predator control to restore hunting opportunities to what they were 25 years ago works well for demagogues looking to rally hunters around a cause or an organization, but it isn't playing our cards very smartly."

 

I personally find this a bit offensive. 70%! 70% is how far down herd numbers are in 42. Not big buck numbers, total herd. That decline can be directly attributed to predation. To dismiss me or anyone else as "demagogues" because we care about the deer is truly offensive. The fact is, tag numbers haven't dropped at a rate that affect anyone really so it has absolutley nothing to do with hunting opportunity. It has to do with the fact that we love the desert and we love our deer and they are being affected on a "large-scale" and not by us!

 

If it is your desire to take a milktoast approach to the predator issues we face, have at it. I will fight for what is best for our deer herds regardless of public perception because its what's best for our wildlife. If I lose in the end and Arizona goes the way of California, so be it. At least I know I made every effort and I bowed to nobody with a HSUS handbag.

 

BTW, I love how some people will talk about the need for more coyote hunts and beat the predator drum then talk out the side of their face and agree with a post like that. Unbelieveable!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[donniedent]

I'm going to add this.

 

Game and Fish has to remove 30% of the coyote population thru aerial gunning in 5bn during the antelope fawning to have any real impact. Last I heard that was around 150 coyotes. I'm betting they would have to do the same anywhere else to help the mule deer fawns. Audsley, please tell me how else we can remove 150 yotes during fawning. 10-80? 150 predator hunters with a week or two to kill?

 

I'm sorry if I seem a little fired up at you and believe it or not, I hear what you are saying. A wise approach must be taken. I would probably be a lot less fired up had you not made the "demagogues" comment.

 

Here's the thing about anti's and this is a fact. They hate everything about us to our core. They have ZERO desire or intention to work with us. They ARE NOT REASONABLE PEOPLE and they never will be. You have to fight fire with fire. We need to make the same drastic steps they do and hope for something in the middle. If we take a reasonable approach they will hammer us even harder. Utah figured this out. Its like walking into a car dealer and starting off with your final offer. Trying to be reasonable will get us nothing, absolutely nothing!

[bonuspointjohn]

I'm going to add this.

 

Game and Fish has to remove 30% of the coyote population thru aerial gunning in 5bn during the antelope fawning to have any real impact. Last I heard that was around 150 coyotes. I'm betting they would have to do the same anywhere else to help the mule deer fawns. Audsley, please tell me how else we can remove 150 yotes during fawning. 10-80? 150 predator hunters with a week or two to kill?

 

I'm sorry if I seem a little fired up at you and believe it or not, I hear what you are saying. A wise approach must be taken. I would probably be a lot less fired up had you not made the "demagogues" comment.

 

Here's the thing about anti's and this is a fact. They hate everything about us to our core. They have ZERO desire or intention to work with us. They ARE NOT REASONABLE PEOPLE and they never will be. You have to fight fire with fire. We need to make the same drastic steps they do and hope for something in the middle. If we take a reasonable approach they will hammer us even harder. Utah figured this out. Its like walking into a car dealer and starting off with your final offer. Trying to be reasonable will get us nothing, absolutely nothing!

OK... Take your hands away from the weapons..... Larry is being ultra cautious about the approach. We are truly not Utah and as scary as it may seem, as a state, Arizona with the influx of CA folks is much closer to CA than Utah. As a hunting community, we have the potential to do a lot of things that the AZGFD and Commission are reluctant to do. That said however, your point is right on Donnie. Our opposition has money, the press (see the article on hunting archery in the McDowell's or the latest on the CBD and how wonderful they are to help prevent the extinction of species) and a war chest that would kick our butts all over the place. We are one well planned initiative from extinction. We do need to tread a little lightly, but let no on mistake our direction....JK

[donniedent]

Well I can certainly the point audsley is making. Making waves can cause us heartache and not making waves can certainly cause us heartache.

 

My main issue with what was said was that we/I were playing to the masses with the aerial gunning push. It is truly about the health or our deer herds in the desert and not about membership is some org. The fact is, whether its popular or not something large-scale needs to be done. Going in and taking out 3 or 4 coyotes is awesome but isn't near enough. Even a big contest won't do enough to knock them down enough to make any real difference. It will makes us feel better at best. Make no mistake though, I'm not nor was I ever demogauging to get more hunting opportunities. A healthy deer herd at or near carrying capacity is all I've ever wanted.

 

Nothing personal audsley, I think your caution is justified and you make a fair argument.

[TLH]

This is good reading! Keep it going...

 

By the way--who will be at the meeting July 9th @ 3 pm to try and talk the game and fish and the Fort McDowell folks into letting us hunt with our bows?

 

Politics are tricky aren't they?

[donniedent]

Politics are for politicians. I'm not fond of either. Politics has been the downfall of wildlife conservation. If our true desire is to have healthy herds and a stable situation for wildlife then there shouldn't be any need for favors and backscratching. When you start focusing on anything other than wildlife and the health of that wildlife, you've lost focus and you become a detriment to wildlife. Politics is nothing more to me than comprimising and there should be no comprimising with wildlife, it should always be about the animals. Case in point, the McDowell mnts. The first thing that should be considered is whether or not there are enough deer to support a hunt and is a hunt in there a good thing. If there are enough deer and there is a need then by all means we should fight for our right to manage that population. If not, then why would we fight for it? Is it about a healthy deer herd or about us?

[TLH]

But Donnie all of this you have written is political. That is all i am saying. Politics is when one person sees things differently than the other. The issue with the McDowell Mt's is not all about deer--it is about Javelina, coyotes and all of the other hunt able wildlife but really the biggest issue is that someone is wanting to take something away from us as hunters and that is the gist of it all.

 

The more you type your side to this issue and disagree the more you are getting deeper and deeper into politics. You are where i was about 10 years ago--i hated anything to do with politics but as i got more and more into what i love i realized that if you do not fight for what you believe then you are the problem and not the solution.

 

I know that politics drive wedges between people but it is what makes this country better than the rest---we actually do have a chance as long as we can get passed the rocky roads we go down and back each other.

 

One thing i do disagree with is your comment about Orgs...you are dead wrong if you think a group of 5 or 10 folks can get as much done as an organization--it just doesn't happen.

 

Now, do we want to fight for the chance to use a resource that has been used by hunters for 100's of years and go to the meeting or do we want to say that it doesn't matter and sit on our hands and let them take another piece of hunting land from us?? It is political but it is important--at least to me. I will be there...

 

Theodore Roosevelt was a politician and he is the reason we have what we have today--politics have done more for wildlife than anything else Donnie---it just isn't a fuzzy feel good thing and no one likes it that I know.

[Snapshot]

I see alot of people here that are very passionate about wildlife, habitat, and the sport of hunting. That is a great thing.

 

I have also seen how fired up sportsmen get, when someone tries to take away our public resources. Land, tags, access,etc.

 

The biggest enemy we face is politicians and lobbyists. Our opposition is determined and well funded. Many times we lose because of liberal minded Judges.

 

The greatest threat to our sport and anything else we hold dear, currently resides in the whitehouse.

 

If sportsman become as passionate about defending our freedoms and rights fom politically abused policies, as they are about building trick tanks and drinkers, we could cut the head off the the politcal snake. (Figuratively speaking) Look at what some of the great guys here did against HB 2072.

 

If we want to preserve our sport, and wildlife, we have to fight the political fight. We need to keep the liberal left wingers out of positions of power.

 

I have already started to do my part. I will be doing some volunteer work for the Romney campaign, as well as some other things to make my voice heard. It may not be much, but if millions of other join the fight, a difference can be made.

 

Politics are an evil that we have to deal with. I don' t like Politics either. But I am disgusted with the direction this once great nation is headed. Obama and his lapdogs need to go,

 

Proud supporter of the Republican party/GOP.

[donniedent]

But Donnie all of this you have written is political. That is all i am saying. Politics is when one person sees things differently than the other. The issue with the McDowell Mt's is not all about deer--it is about Javelina, coyotes and all of the other hunt able wildlife but really the biggest issue is that someone is wanting to take something away from us as hunters and that is the gist of it all.

 

The more you type your side to this issue and disagree the more you are getting deeper and deeper into politics. You are where i was about 10 years ago--i hated anything to do with politics but as i got more and more into what i love i realized that if you do not fight for what you believe then you are the problem and not the solution.

 

I know that politics drive wedges between people but it is what makes this country better than the rest---we actually do have a chance as long as we can get passed the rocky roads we go down and back each other.

 

One thing i do disagree with is your comment about Orgs...you are dead wrong if you think a group of 5 or 10 folks can get as much done as an organization--it just doesn't happen.

 

Now, do we want to fight for the chance to use a resource that has been used by hunters for 100's of years and go to the meeting or do we want to say that it doesn't matter and sit on our hands and let them take another piece of hunting land from us?? It is political but it is important--at least to me. I will be there...

 

Theodore Roosevelt was a politician and he is the reason we have what we have today--politics have done more for wildlife than anything else Donnie---it just isn't a fuzzy feel good thing and no one likes it that I know.

There is no side to my issue Terry, something is either beneficial to wildlife or its not. Your take on politics is your opinion and you are welcome to it. There is a huge difference between being poltically active as a culture and fighting for our rights and playing politics amongst ourselves. The politics being played amongst ourselves is what I am refering to. Teddy Roosevelt was a politician but what he did and what we still benefit from was an ideology not his politics. He ended up being a progressive liberal in the end. I gave quick examples of what I'm talking about and you're trying to disect what I was saying ie... The McDowell Mnts. You don't think I know there are more than mule deer there Terry? Really? I was using it as an example. And... Our right to hunt should never supercede the welfare of the wildlife we have claimed to love and be responsible for. You're the regional director for MDF so you should know this, especially if you're going in to fight for the McDowells. What's the estimated mule deer population in the 33 square mile area? What's the buck/doe ratio in there? What's the hunter days for the area? We'll keep it about mule deer since you're with the MDF. This is all information you should probably go in knowing so please share it with me. Convince me why I should show up other than we have the right to be there. Point is Terry, that's the important stuff, not selling tickets to a banquet. That's what SWSA was supposed to be but we noth know what happened there.

[THE RIFLEMAN]

California should reintroduce the "California Grizzly Bear" , pass a bill to allow it to eat illegal aliens all the way into old Mexico!.... Tree huggin, sandle wearin pinko squirrel feckers! The entire state of Calif needs to be washed clean by a giant sunamei .... !!!!

[donniedent]

Lmao... That's funny.

 

People complain about all the californians moving here. I figure they can't be all that bad, they were smart enough to leave at least.

[TLH]

Donnie, i will say this and i will go get my banquets ready--i am not going to the meeting as MDF i am going to the meeting as a bow hunter in Arizona--you seem to be stuck on my new job and that is OK. I am sure i could find all the answers to your questions but the McDowell's has nothing to do with deer populations but it has everything to do with loosing a resource that many of us have hunted for 30 or 40 years.

 

Good luck staying out of politics Donnie!

 

Maybe i will see you at a project somewhere this year sometime.