Well, after poking around last night I really did see a dearth of content. I mean, really… this isn’t the most conducive time of year to writing. Halfway between the holidays and tax time… and whatever. Maybe I’m just feeling pre-burnout, before I take off on a hog hunt, the SHOT Show, another hog hunt, an exotics hunt in Texas, and then several months of guiding for turkeys and hogs….
Anyway…
So poking around in the CA Fish and Game website, in hopes of finding some kind of info that might help in the battle against the lead ban, I found the following position statement on wild hogs:
It is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission that:
The wild pig population of the State must be controlled to minimize the threat of increasing damage to California’s native plant and animals, to agricultural operations and to park and recreational activities from the foraging habits of the animals.
Consistent with State law and regulations, the Department will prepare and recommend to the Commission regulations which enhance recreational hunting and facilitate the issuing of depredation permits and/or other legally available means to alleviate this problem.
Now, I could go 20 different ways with this, but the bottom line is that the Fish and Game Commission’s actions of the last couple of years seems directly in conflict with the position statement.
First of all, increasing the cost of wild pig tags over 10 years from about $5 for a book of five to $17.85 for a SINGLE TAG flies in the face of the entire statement… but especially with the last paragraph. Seems to me that it would make better sense to do as other states and delist the wild hog from “game” status to vermin, and let folks kill them whenever and however they can.
The lead ban provisions further hinder hog hunters. While I disagree with the assessment of folks like the NRA that hunter attrition will grow exponentially… the cost and difficulty of finding non-lead ammo will definitely cut back on the number of hog hunters.
The other thing I found was in the last month’s edition of the California Waterfowl Association (CWA) magazine.
In that issue, they interviewed the newest member of the CA Fish and Game Commission, Michael Sutton. To me, as a big game hunter, this interview was singularly enlightening. A key passage read:
Q: Are you a hunter or angler?
A: Yes, I’ve been a hunter and fisherman for many years. My stint as a federal game warden soured me on big game hunting. Today I’m involved mainly in wing-shooting and fly-fishing. Each year I hunt chukars in Idaho, pheasants in South Dakota, and fish trout, steelhead, and salmon throughout the American west.
Wait a minute…
He’s “sour” on big game hunting, yet he’s supposed to help pass informed legislation that directly impacts big game hunters?
Not only that, but he doesn’t really even hunt in California!?!
From a later question:
To tell you the truth, most of my hunting has been in other states. This is something I’ll be trying to remedy in the near future! So I don’t know yet whether or not there is a shortage of hunting opportunities in California. …
Great, so yet another member of our Fish and Game Commission has a negative position toward big game hunting, and doesn’t even hunt here enough to know if there are ample opportunities to hunt in this state?
Is it just me? Does anyone else have a problem with our wildlife laws being set by folks who don’t even hunt in CA… or even worse, from folks with a negative attitude toward a huge part of the hunting population (big game hunters)?
Boy, I could get totally cranked up now… but instead I intend to look a little deeper into the hunting credentials of our Fish and Game Commission. More to come on this one, I guarantee!
Wow. That issue of the magazine got buried in a pile before I could read it, so I haven’t seen that article. But how depressing!
Here’s what I predict you will find when digging for credentials: campaign contributions and political connections. Hell, I’ll help you on the campaign contributions, if you like.