Comments on: Lead Ban Chronicles – Good News from Woodlands

By: Kevin Kreyenhagen

Kevin Kreyenhagen — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:05:12 +0000

I am glad to see Eric Loft is participating in the conversations on this sight. I had the oppurtunity to debate with Dr. Loft at a meeting in Hollister concerning mountain lion problems on July 8th 2009. I was a little concerned with Dr. Loft when he tried to discount my concerns about the Hill Bill money not being used properly. Some of you reading this may wonder what Hill Bill money means or where it comes from. 54% of your deer tag money goes into a designated fund called the Hill Bill fund and that money is supposed to be used strictly for deer herd management through out the state. Well that is not the case. I can tell you this if I were a biologist working for the DFG I would make it a personal mission to see that the Hill Bill money was used what it was collected for. Deer herd improvement projects. I did not get an answer from Dr. Loft about installing big game guzzlers to spread the deer herd out in areas were the lack of water is the only factor making an area unuseable for deer. We all know of areas that could potentially be great habitat for deer if only there was water. I understand that a new Assembly Bill is working its way through that will require better accountability for sportsmen money. What is the Bill number Dr. Loft? I also understand that the governor dismattled the Williamson Act which cost the state 48 million dollars a year to keep in effect but the Mountain Lion Foundation gets 30 million a year of your tax money. Something is terribly wrong with that picture.

By: Phillip Loughlin

Phillip Loughlin — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:00:52 +0000

Thanks for chiming in, Eric. I know you have limitations on how much you should speak “out of school”, so I appreciate any time you can drop in on the site and set the record straight.

By: Eric Loft

Eric Loft — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:29:38 +0000

Jean is not right; that kind of thinking is unfortunately out there in the public but has never been true in my 20+ years from the inside. We are not guided by how much revenue might get created/lost when it comes to resource conservation issues. Eric

By: Phillip Loughlin

Phillip Loughlin — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 17:41:25 +0000

Jean, maybe you’re right, but I think the decline in tag sales has been an ongoing issue that has nothing (or very, very little) to do with the lead ban. Folks are dropping out of the sport in CA because it’s getting too hard to find quality hunting on public land, because the economy has caused folks to cut back on discretionary spending, and simply because people are losing touch with the tradition.

I think that the overwhelming evidence presented to the commission has turned the tide of opinion (and adding a new republican commissioner with pro-NRA leanings didn’t hurt). I’m still not sure what spun Rogers around on the issue, but I’m glad for whatever it was.

By: Jean

Jean — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 04:16:35 +0000

I wonder how many of the No votes were due to the lower tag revenues? This was hitting them square in the pocketbook at the same time the state has run itself out of money. What ever their reasons for voting No, I am happy to see it.

Thank you for posting the information. Thank Holly for her good presence at the meeting(s).

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:35:59 +0000

Good news.. I’m glad one of our own was able to sit the meetings and report. Thanks Holly.

By: Arthur

Arthur — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:27:30 +0000

It’s good to hear that some common sense prevailed. I’m sure this issue will come up again at some point, and we’ll have another round of people who want to expand the ban, but I’m glad for now that people used their heads. That is good news all around.