Davis Budget

[Bill in SD]

Not to scare anyone, but I heard a while ago that Rob Rheiner is thinking of running for Governor, or it was something about some people thinking this would be a good idea.

Do you remember the Days of Governor Moonbeam? What ever happened to Jerry Brown?

As my memory serves me, he was much more liberal than Davis. No, I am not making any excesses for Davis, just trying to feel better.

I was really, really angry that all this baloney came out a couple of months after the election. If this would have been known before the election I am sure that republican guy, I can't even remember his name now would have easily won.

What was that other guy Riordan? or something, I thought he would have made a good governer.

Bill

 

[RIFLEMAN]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

What was that other guy Riordan? I thought he would have made a good governer.[/b]

Riordan is a wolf in sheep's clothing and is notoriously anti-gun.

 

[manfreddy]

Jerry Brown is the mayor of Oakland California. He's done an oustanding job reducing the crime, escpecially homicides (dripping with sarcasm).

"Oakland poised to hit 100 homicides for year, and mayor announces crackdown
November 15, 2002, Friday
By KIM CURTIS
339 words

The city is closing in on 100 homicides for the first time since 1995, and Mayor Jerry Brown said he'll crack down to stop ``people running around like it's the wild west.'' Just two weeks after voters refused to fund Brown's plan to add 100 officers to patrol the city's hotspots, two more people were killed within hours of each other."

 

[shooten]

Here's another way to help. There is a recall effort for Gray Davis. Here's the link: http://www.recallgraydavis.com They had 10000 people sign up in the first 3 days. I'm not affiliated with them but I'll support them.

Scott

 

[Kickaha]

Originally posted by Bill in SD@Feb 13 2003, 04:18 PM
Do you remember the Days of Governor Moonbeam? What ever happened to Jerry Brown? As my memory serves me, he was much more liberal than Davis.

You know that Joe Davis ("Gray" Davis' real name) worked for Governor Moonbeam, don't you? He was chief of staff or something like that. Hence, Joe's nickname, Governor Lowbeam.

 

[Bill in SD]

Rifleman, to tell you the truth I did not study up on who was who in the Republican side running for governor. To me it seemed confusing and tough to figure out who I wanted to nominate. Who was it that the NRA endorsed on the Republican side, that is who I voted for in the primaries.

Kickaha, I did not know that about Davis. I understood he was not as much a liberal as Brown.

That's a funny one about low beam....lol

What do you guys think about Frankenstein and Boxer??? There are a couple of doooosers. I have written letters to both of them to oppose more firearms legislation as well as hunting restrictions and the one letter I did get back from Frankenstein said she agreed with me that a certain type of trap or something was cruel. I wrote in pen right on that letter, and said NO!!!!! that is not what I wrote I am against that bill and signed my name.

The whole thing is utter frustrating and venting about it makes me depressed.

What I do is talk with people about my passion for hunting and the outdoors and try to educate people. I am just one person but if we all invite someone to come along fishing or hunting or shooting with us it could turn back the red tide.

My wife is into hunting and after trying a bow wants one. She can shoot a 308 like no ones business, and she could shoot a compound bow well with practice I am sure. I take a guy that I supervise trap shooting at lunch and have taken him to the local bowshop, because he is interested. San Diego believe it or not is fairly conservative and many people at work are interested in my hunting and fishing stories. I think it my passion for these sports that gets peoples attention. Most people are content to watch tv when the get home and go to the movies on the weekends.

Take care and have a great weekend all.
Bill

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Bill,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Who was it that the NRA endorsed on the Republican side, that is who I voted for in the primaries[/b]

Bill Jones was the candidate the NRA endorsed. He was my candidate as well.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

 I am just one person but if we all invite someone to come along fishing or hunting or shooting with us it could turn back the red tide.  [/b]

I am of the same thinking. My friends ask me why I take so many people hunting for free when I could be charging them. My response is that I am contributing to my sport. I know that I can't do anthing to stop the management of wildlife from the ballot box, so I try to influence the mindset of the non hnters who enter the voting booth. It is my hope that by taking them hunting with dogs, they would come to appreciate the challenge, thrill and sporting aspects enough to not vote to ban it when that dark day comes.

 

[Freedivr2]

Rifleman............I'm not gunna dig into the codes again, but did read that (that deer and pig tag monies go directly into the habitat and population managment of deer and pigs) in one of the Fish and Game codes last year, when I wanted to know where the money went for pig tags. I recall reading it in those codes, on the Dept. of Fish and Game website. I believe I found it thru their search engine, just use the words Fish and Game code or something like that.

It doesn't matter, though. Government says one thing and does another all the time. What gave the feds the right to take the funds collected from Social Security and spend it on welfare programs? It wasn't collected for social programs other than retirement, but it didn't stop the feds from stealing from those coffers and now they've got a big problem paying off social security.

Good luck fighting the democraps in California. Good luck. Way too many of them and they don't listen to reason. If it's not to their personal gain or benefit, it just doesn't matter to them.

JIM MATHEWS wrote a column a few weeks ago that provided some really interesting points. In a nutshell, he said that the hunters and fishermen were being cut up from all kinds of different fronts, from environmentals to gun control advocates to the commercial fishing lobby. And that the hunters and fishermen have a lot of small groups that are trying to fight back a little, but don't have a "one stop shopping" kinda group to lobby for us when new laws are introduced or public land being sold by the Fish and Game or BLM to private ranchers, etc. What Jim was suggesting was that we have a State Regulatory commission created whose sole purpose in life would be to protect public sport hunting and fishing interests. How to go about that? I dunno, I've never got into the initiative or referendum process. Most of us are too busy at work during the week to even make a feeble attempt at trying to help create something like this, right?

Then again, maybe there's more than one way to skin that cat. Perhaps we could start a thread right here and build on it as we learn how to go thru that initiative process. Yeah, anyone can throw $20 at someone, but those of you who REALLY want to do something need to take action. There's plenty of others that can throw $20 in the pot if needed. But what we truly need is people willing to give a little time to this, say, an hour or two a week. What do you guys think? Should we start a thread and see what we can do?

My fear is that if we don't do something, eventually, hunting will be a sport just for the rich, as it is in Germany. Or, we'll eventually have all the public land blocked off, or, well, who knows how bad it can get with all the anti's out there? If it's OK with Jesse to do this, we could start a seperate thread and actually start moving forward on this thought. Whatdayathink?

 

[DKScott]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

What Jim was suggesting was that we have a State Regulatory commission created whose sole purpose in life would be to protect public sport hunting and fishing interests.[/b]

Bad idea, IMO. Any group drawing a paycheck from the State is ultimately going to be co-opted by the State's more powerful groups and interests. They will control its budgets and its membership. Look at the current F&G Commission, for example

Mathew's point is valid, maybe the better solution is an independent umbrella Sportsmens' Alliance as a lobby that can speak for all the sportsmens groups and with an agreement that we all support each others issues and deliver a large voting block and targeted campaign cash. A group large enough and
powerful enough to make a critical difference in at least some legislative races and influence bills of interest to any constituent group.

This type of mutual support pact has been the cornerstone of Democrat politics for years and while it can be contentious, you can't argue that it doesn't work.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Freedvr,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

 I...did read that deer and pig tag monies go directly into the habitat and population managment of deer and pigs in one of the Fish and Game codes last year.  I believe I found it thru their search engine, just use the words Fish and Game code or something like that.[/b]

In this case, I find it very hard that they could somehow legitimize a 1000% increase for the cost of each tag solely for hog management. This code could be very useful information to have on hand as ammo for the fight...unless they change that code too.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

   It doesn't matter, though. Government says one thing and does another all the time. What gave the feds the right to take the funds collected from Social Security and spend it on welfare programs? It wasn't collected for social programs other than retirement, but it didn't stop the feds from stealing from those coffers and now they've got a big problem paying off social security.[/b]

How very true. We are still paying a tax that was implemented in order to fund the Spanish-American War.

***Those dark days I mentioned are now upon us...much sooner than I hoped. There is now a bill that would ban the use of dogs for hunting mammals!!!***

 

[bigtusker]

Think about it this way. How much wild pig meat do you consume in a year?
How many pigs do you actually kill? I shoot 2 or 3 pigs a year. That is more than enough meat for me including turning a bunch of it into sausage for parties. The guys who go out and kill 25 a year are wasting it. They should have to pay $15 a tag for killing so many. Or maybe more. If they do raise the fee to $15/tag, they will no longer sell them in books of 5. Don't get me totally wrong here, I agree that an increase from under 2 bucks per tag to $15 is way out of line. The person(s) who drafted the proposal are idiots. Increase it to $15/book, not $15/apiece, that's more than fair.

 

[Freedivr2]

DKScott.......The point is, there are too many independent sportsmans alliances already and they are fragmented. Yes, I see a lot of Conservatories working very well to take away land from the public and fence it off to hunting. Too many "special interest groups" and individuals get into that game and I can see that possibly doing a lot more harm than good because of that. Believe me, from growing up in the 50s and 60s, I'm not one for wanting to create more government or bureacracy. Having said that, I also know that there are some necessary evils needed where way more good come out of them that do bad things. At least state boards can be open to the public. Check out the regulation, albiet being walked all over by Gay Davis, I've posted below. The California Costal commission is an example of what I was thinking of, a commission where when something affects the coast (development, whatever), it has to be approved by the commission to go forth. But the real and much more interesting question is, how much personal effort are we willing to give to perpetuate our and our childrens future hunting and fishing interests? I will pledge 2 hours a week to start for sure. Anyone else?

bigtusker.......personally, I don't want to "think about it that way". That's ignoring principle 100%. I want to think about it the way it is. What's wrong with the state playing by their own rules (see Fish and game code 4656, below). Davis screws up big time with the energy crisis, and instead of biting the bullet and letting our electric bills go up for a few months, he mortgages the state and we end up getting smacked for it now in all kinds of ways. This is giving the liberal democrats in the state capitol just umpteen reasons to raise every fee and tax then can. And they will if nobody screams back. Oh, and the answer is; 9 hogs last year and yes they all went to good use, none at all was wasted. Every piece eaten by my extended family (and a couple of friends). Man, I can barely handle the butchering fees alone.

Rifleman.........it kinda bugged me that I didn't have the exact Fish and Game code number or section for you when you asked (re: what the revenue from pig tags are SUPPOSED to be used for). So what the hey, I looked it up and found the chapter/code about pigs and pig tags. So here's the code, a copy and paste straight from the Fish and Game website (and the link to all the Fish and game codes if anyone's interested in that kinda stuff);

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawque...codesection=fgc

Division 4, Part 3, Chapter 7, section 4656 of the Calif. Fish and Game code states;

"Revenues received pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited
in the Fish and Game Preservation Fund. These funds shall be
available for expenditure by the department solely for wild pig
management. The department shall maintain all internal accounting
measures necessary to ensure that all restrictions on these funds are
met."

What are we supposed to do with that? Nothing? Read it and weep? To me, the word "SOLELY" kinda means "for no other purpose than", doesn't it?

Is this just another example of how good honest folks can get ripped off in broad daylight by those we pay and who pledge "on their honor" to rightfully govern us? If this is the case, PLEASE go scream bloody murder to your representatives, fellas. And use their own codes and laws to make your point. IF it's true that the pig tags are going up because of the current economy, then I think someone owes us a little explanation here, don't you? Oh yeah........when the economy improves in a couple years do you really think the tag fee would go back to $1.50 each? Keep dreamin..........once fees go up, they stay up.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

bigtusker,


You picked the wrong thing to say...


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Think about it this way. How much wild pig meat do you consume in a year?
How many pigs do you actually kill? I shoot 2 or 3 pigs a year. That is more than enough meat for me including turning a bunch of it into sausage for parties. The guys who go out and kill 25 a year are wasting it. They should have to pay $15 a tag for killing so many. Or maybe more.[/b]

That is an ignorant thing to say, plain and simple. It establishes a dangerous mindset to say the least and I hope that yours is the minority opinion out there. Who are you to say how many hogs one person should be able to kill. Who are you to say how many hogs one person can eat. We aren't talking about deer, elk or ducks where the numbers do not warrant an unlimited harvest. There is no need to "ration" or "dole out" the harvest of hogs for any reason.

I caught 50 hogs last year and killed 38. I let more hogs go than you killed. For the ones harvested, the meat was not wasted in the least bit. I gave away several hogs and doled out even more choice cuts of meat (including pepperoni sticks, summer sausage, hot links, smoked hams, etc) to classmates, colleagues, acquaintances, landlords, neighbors and other non hunters in order to reinforce the image of hunters and show the benefits of hunting. I actually garnered more support by sharing the fruits of my labor...I do not consider that a waste. In fact, I find that to be more beneficial than someone who kills only two or three hogs a year for themselves. In this way, I contributed more politically to hog hunting than you did.

From the financial perspective, you donated $9.20 directly to hog management. I donated much more...$74. (If anything, I should pay less, not more, by buying hog tags in bulk!) Who is more beneficial to the sport in that respect? You went hunting what, a few times? I drove over a hundred miles at least once a week every week in the pursuit of hogs. I used more gas, bought more dog food and used more ammunition...To this end, you could say that I did more to contribute to our weak economy by hunting hogs as much as I did than you did. I took more hunters and introduced more aspiring hunters to the sport than you did. In this line of thinking, this act generated a greater number of licenses, tags and ammo being sold than you did. Let's say I paid the butcher $70/hog (it was actually much more because of all the specialty cuts), I would have paid $2660 to the butcher that helped to support his family. You would have paid the butcher a total of $140-210.

From a wildlife management perspective, I did more to contribute to the DFG's hog management goals than you did. They have implemented an open season with no bag or possession limit for a biological reason. My take of hogs did more to support their efforts than yours did.

Here is a brief logical argument defending my position. I look forward to yours...bring it on.

 

[DKScott]

Rifleman,

You have to remember that hogs are presently in the pest category in many locales whereas most game animals are in considerably shorter supply. If I understand Bigtusker's point, it's comes from the fact that the Statewide deer harvest is in the low teens% and single digit in many zones. Some guys go years between successful hunts. I know lots of folks that have never gotten a limit of quail or pheasant or ducks - and yes, they can shoot. We wait 10 years between successful draws for antelope bucks and the doe hunt has been cancelled for the last two years. Many never get drawn. Same for elk. Game populations are very low and that is a more or less permanent condition now.

With game and habitat under so much pressure, there are such things as game hogs (the human kind) that are only interested in the body count for their own ego gratification, beyond any reasonable personal use for the meat. I have seen freezers with several hundred pounds of meat, most of which will neither be shared nor eaten - only possessed indefinitely. I have had guys tell me with no shame about how they high-graded their deer (keep only the choice cuts and leave the rest).

If hogs are so plentiful in your area that they are nuisance, fine have at it. But if it gets to the point where success rates drop and areas are hunted out, it's time step back and give them a little room to recover and let some other folks bring some meat to the table.

Just a little perspective.

Scott

 

[DKScott]

Freedivr2,

The suggestion I was trying to make was to stitch all these independent groups into one single alliance, staffed and governed by and for those member groups to speak for sportsmen with one unified and very loud voice. The Coastal Commission, which was recently declared unconstitutional by the 3rd District Court, is a perfect example of what happens when government controls the process. It becomes a large autocratic behemoth that cares not the least about what those grubby little citizens want.

 

[muledeer07]

I'm in for the 20.00 bucks and I also want a Davis tag for a grand.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Scott,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

 You have to remember that hogs are presently in the pest category in many locales whereas most game animals are in considerably shorter supply. If I understand Bigtusker's point, it's comes from the fact that the Statewide deer harvest is in the low teens% and single digit in many zones. Some guys go years between successful hunts. I know lots of folks that have never gotten a limit of quail or pheasant or ducks - and yes, they can shoot. We wait 10 years between successful draws for antelope bucks and the doe hunt has been cancelled for the last two years. Many never get drawn. Same for elk. Game populations are very low and that is a more or less permanent condition now.  [/b]

I do indeed remember this Scott. In fact, I acknowledged this in my first and last paragraphs concerning wildlife management. But we aren't talking about deer, quail, pheasant, ducks, antelope or elk. We are talking about hogs and hogs only. The low deer harvest numbers have nothing to do with how many hogs I should be able to take.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

 With game and habitat under so much pressure, there are such things as game hogs (the human kind) that are only interested in the body count for their own ego gratification, beyond any reasonable personal use for the meat. I have seen freezers with several hundred pounds of meat, most of which will neither be shared nor eaten - only possessed indefinitely. I have had guys tell me with no shame about how they high-graded their deer (keep only the choice cuts and leave the rest).  [/b]

I deplore this practice as much as anyone else, but that is an issue with a certain segment of the population. You should not punish the majority for the improper or criminal acts of the minority. This same flawed argument (citing the extreme cases, not the norm) is made by advocates for gun control. It is simply not appropriate or logical to increase the cost of hog tags for those who take more than two or three for PUNITIVE reasons as bigtusker advocates.

Also, as you pointed out with the "high grading" of deer, this wasteful practice often takes place when a single animal is taken so this practice is not necessarily inherent when a large number of animals are taken.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

 If hogs are so plentiful in your area that they are nuisance, fine have at it. But if it gets to the point where success rates drop and areas are hunted out, it's time step back and give them a little room to recover and let some other folks bring some meat to the table.  [/b]

Some things to consider...
1. In California, hogs are classified as big game animals, but are biologically regarded as nuisance animals.
2. Hogs are extremely hardy, intelligent, adaptable and prolific animals that are highly resistant to predation once they achieve a certain size. Studies by Texas A&M indicate that 80% of the hog population must be harvested at all times in order to achieve zero population growth. Closer to home, in order to rid a Channel Island of its hog population, the use of dogs, traps, and nighttime "sharpshooters" aboard helicopters with FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared) were all applied. With this in mind, the odds of depleting the hog population by the typical hunter is relatively non existent. Rather, it is PRESSURE (the presence and pursuit) applied to hogs on public land that may give you and bigtusker the impression that hog numbers are declining due to hunting. The hogs are not being hunted out, they are being pushed out onto private lands.
3. Most hunters who take large numbers of hogs do so either:
a.On Private Property-If this is the case, the argument for hogs being hunted out is moot. It is not for anyone to say whether or not hogs must be allowed to roam on any given person's property. The owner can hunt them out of existence if they so choose.
b.With the use of dogs-Hunting with coursing dogs is one of the only forms of non-consumptive hunting...the overall thrill and the ultimate goal is not in the kill, but in the pursuit and catch. We strive to ensure that there is a large population of game so that we can feel relatively assured of a pursuit. To this end, houndsmen are notoriously conservative with game. In fact, this factor played a big role in the opening of bear season in conjunction with deer season. The houndsmen were not killing as many bears as the state wanted (in order to meet management goals) and the 79 day season was reached before the quota was. I know a houndsman (who is retired) that spends all season hunting bear. He catches about 70 a year and kills none. Why? Because of the mentality of houndsmen that for every one piece of game that is killed, there is one less to pursue. Most houndsmen I know would not hunt out a population of hogs because they most desire to be able to pursue them regularly.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Freedivr,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

 Oh yeah........when the economy improves in a couple years do you really think the tag fee would go back to $1.50 each? Keep dreamin..........once fees go up, they stay up.[/b]

You got that right. Like I was saying, we are still funding the Spanish-American War.

Thanks for the ammo. Let's see where it goes.

 

[Freedivr2]

I like your way o thinkin, Rifleman, and agree with you 100%. Also appreciate the time you spend here offering your point of view to others, so thanks for taking the time to do that, that's cool.

Now, back to pig hunting........what is your deal where you have trapped on the average of 1 pig per week last year? Depredation? If that's the case, you don't need a tag for them, just a dep permit. Just curious, not interested in "hoggin in" (don't pardon the pun) on your fun here, but if there are like opportunities for others, that'd be cool to know so they could pursue those means.

 

[mjohns2]

I say lets do it.

Governor Gray Davis
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633
governor@governor.ca.gov

"To help us keep track of correspondence and to ensure that we are able to respond to California residents, please be sure to include your name and address when you communicate with the Governor's Office. We do not accept e-mail attachments."

I posted his email address but I think a letter on paper or a phone call is alot more effective.



District Offices

Fresno Office
2550 Mariposa Mall #3013
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: 559-445-5295
Fax: 559-445-5328


Los Angeles Office
300 South Spring Street
Suite 16701
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: 213-897-0322
Fax: 213-897-0319


Riverside Office
3737 Main Street #201
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: 909-680-6860
Fax: 909-680-6863


San Francisco Office
455 Golden Gate Avenue
Suite 14000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 415-703-2218
Fax: 415-703-2803


Washington D.C. Office
134 Hall of the States
444 North Capitol Street NW
Washington D.C. 20001
Phone: 202-624-5270
Fax: 202-624-5280