Todays FG commission meeting discussed a couple of times that hunters represent "1% of California."
from latest figures I looked up:
hunting licenses sold 2008/Calif 2008 pop est.=
301,968/36,756,666= 0.82% of California population hunts.:smiley_doh:
I don't think there would be a reversal of law based on impact to wildlife, [in part, continuing on the 1991 Proposition 117 theme] however, should lions become more of a threat to human life and property, that might shift the sentiment.
p.s. What's going to happen in 2020 when Prop 117 expires??? Will the DFG support it's renewal (try to keep the $30mil/yr) or put forth some effort to show that it might have been a "bad idea" for voters to exclude management of one species... i.e. Tie DFG's hands in balancing populations across the board... Hard to manage all wildlife in CA, except for one - which has a big impact on all the others.
99% of california voters "will" listen to what DFG says - minus the extremists on both sides of the issue. 11 years and counting...
what $30 million/yr? there was no new money provided with Prop 117; but existing funds were to be spentfor acquisition etc, to save deer/lion habitat. These are generally funds within the Wildlife Conservation Board.
the department said yes to a SLO bear hunt just last month. it only took a minivan-full's worth of people to bring that to a halt...
Anyway - I thought Prop 117 specifically generated 30 Mil via new taxes/etc that specifically must be spent as you say... (not all bad uses of the money - not saying that)... But it did allocated, if I read this right, $30 mil in new revenue for wildlife.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.