How much are you willing to pay?

[fishnhunt]

IMHO hogs should be un-regulated. No tags required. They should be paying people to kill them. I think they do way more damage than people imagine. Especially for deer. That being said I know people enjoy hunting them.

+1

 

[Kentuck]

Now the part where I will raise some hackles:

IMHO hogs should be un-regulated. No tags required. They should be paying people to kill them. I think they do way more damage than people imagine. Especially for deer. That being said I know people enjoy hunting them.

+2! There was a time there weren't even classified as a game animal in CA.

 

[larrysogla]

When I first arrived in California in 1973......the state population was 11 million. NOW it is somewhere in the 35 million. Triple what it was 36 years ago. Then it was unregulated...no tags, no seasons for wild hogs. With the urbanization of much of coastal California(where the majority of hogs live) there is decreasing acreage available for the hog hunter other than private property. With the triple increase in the state population......maybe the hunting pressure is just too much for unregulated public land hog hunting. Just my 2c, of course.
'Nuff said
larrysogla

 

[easymoney]

larrysogla, another homerun...
I was born and raised in so cal, seeing the landscape change from orange groves and table grapes to houses and shopping malls as far as the eye can see. You hit on one of the reasons why many things suffer here in CA, over population by humans and development on previously pristeen land. I have lived in SLO county for 40 years and pigs were everywhere even on public land, no tags needed, lots of ranches willing to give permission to hunt those mangy pigs, but that has all changed now.
The controlled dispersal of tags or permits is coming, because the demand is too high and the open land for hunting is becoming less and less. And it has become a matter of economics plan and simple, we will pay more for what opportunities we get.
I just want to know the money collected for these programs is going to come back to the program and not bedumped into the general state fund pool which it seems is happening now.

 

[larrysogla]

easymoney,
I was not aware of the "diversion" of the hunter revenue dollars to other goobermint non-hunting projects until I read it here in JHO. I thank JHO for the awareness level that it has done for us hunters. So, to raise the awareness level on this issues another notch.........on most state and local elections.....the voter turn-out is only 10% to 30%. So this JHO membership roll CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE in state/local elections by simply going out and vote(I vote even on local elections). Marc(DFG Bear) can only instigate and support the hunter agenda but he probably cannot direct where the DFG funds are channeled, whether for the hunting agenda or somewhere else non-hunting agenda. As a voting bloc, JHO can make that pro-hunting difference. So, Marc we like your creativity but we have to vote the politicians that will help you do your job. Let us remember that President George "Dubya" Bush won over Al Gore by only a few hundred votes in a Presidential election. Your vote counts a lot when only 10% to 30% actually cast their vote.
Bringing the private ranches into this DFG program is in the right direction.
Thanks Marc.
'Nuff said
larrysogla

 

[RIFLEMAN]

I was not aware of the "diversion" of the hunter revenue dollars to other goobermint non-hunting projects until I read it here in JHO. I thank JHO for the awareness level that it has done for us hunters...So this JHO membership roll CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE in state/local elections by simply going out and vote...Marc(DFG Bear) can only instigate and support the hunter agenda but he probably cannot direct where the DFG funds are channeled, whether for the hunting agenda or somewhere else non-hunting agenda. As a voting bloc, JHO can make that pro-hunting difference. So, Marc we like your creativity but we have to vote the politicians that will help you do your job.

You hit the nail on the head, larrysogla. Marc cannot do it alone, nor should DFG be the scapegoat for things out of their control.

I would like to call upon every JHO member who has voiced their concern about how our money is spent and where it goes as well as those others who would like to ensure that our money be spent directly on efforts relating to the protection, conservation, and properity of our wildlife to not only be vigilant to efforts to divert funds elsewhere, but I would like all of us to commit to rallying together in support of legislation similar to SB589 that was unsuccessful this past legislative year. I'm not 100% certain if COHA intends to work with the Governor's Office to see if his concerns can be addressed and then introduce a similar bill this coming session, but I will certainly give you guys a heads up if they do.

Here are the details regarding Senate Bill 589...

Bill Specifics:

"This bill will establish a consolidated big game management account in the Fish and Game Preservation Fund where the proceeds of specialized tags to authorize the hunting of antelope, elk, deer, wild pig, bear, and bighorn sheep will be deposited. The funds will be available upon appropriation for projects that will benefit these species and expand public hunting opportunities as well as land acquisition, enforcement, and the department's reasonable costs. An advisory committee will be appointed to review expenditures. Grants to nonprofits that are consistent with the purposes of this account will be authorized.

The existing upland game bird account will be amended to provide for an advisory committee to provide oversight of the funds recommended for expenditure. Funds can also be awarded to reimburse nonprofit groups that develop habitat projects.

The bill also provides that lands purchased by the state with hunting license revenues shall be open to the public for hunting and other activities that require only minimal facilities.

This bill clarifies that funds in the new big game management accounts will be generally available for big game projects, rather than projects specific to the species that are covered by the individual tags."

Bill Authors:
Introduced By: Senator Harman
Coauthored By: Senator Aanestad, and Assembly Members Bill Berryhill, DeVore, Fuller, and Silva.

Voting Record:
Senate voted 35 Ayes and 1 No by Senator Gloria Romero (D-East LA).
Assembly voted 73 Ayes and 0 Noes.
Appropriations Committee voted 15 Ayes and 0 Noes.
Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife voted 11 Ayes and 0 Noes.
Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee voted 11 Ayes and 0 Noes.

Not Voting:
Senators Cedillo, Florez, Huff, Steinberg, and a Vacancy
Assembly Members Anderson, Eng, Krekorian, Lieu, Saldana, Villines, and a Vacancy

Supported By:
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance (Source)
California Council of Land Trusts
California Deer Association
The Mule Deer Foundation
California Chapter Foundation for North American Wild Sheep
Lower Sherman Island Duck Hunters Association

Opposed By:
Born Free USA because, "it would fund projects related to hunting and habitat improvements for that purpose."

Final Disposition:
Vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger because, "This bill would establish two new dedicated accounts within the Fish and Game Preservation Fund; one for the deposit of revenues generated through the sale of big game tags, and one for funds received from the sale of upland game bird stamps. This bill would make changes to the way in which the Department of Fish and Game (Department) may spend the monies in the newly-created accounts and would require the Department to include a fund condition statement on its website. The creation of more dedicated accounts and reserving more funds for those accounts will only increase the complexity of the Department's fiscal management of these dollars, as well as reduce the Department's flexibility to appropriately administer hunting programs.

Additionally, the bill's requirement that the Department post budget information on its public website is redundant since the Department already does this for all of its accounts."

 

[Common Sense]

I wouldn't pay for a pig hunt. I have had several opportunities to shot a pig, and didn't because I just don't have a desire to kill a pig.

Having said that, I am sure I would send in applications for this type of thing for my grandson(as long as it was reasonable costs). I didn't even buy myself a deer tag last year, but bought him a couple.

Give the kids a better chance.

 

[larrysogla]

Rifleman,
Man I am amazed by your encyclopedic data/numbers in your head. Thanks for the wealth of knowledge you bring into JHO. NOW with the list of hunter friendly and NOT hunter friendly State Senators and Assemblymen, we should save it into our computer file everytime we come up with such hunter friendly/hunter unfriendly list and come next State/local election, vote in the hunter friendly candidates and vote out the hunter UNFRIENDLY candidates. REMEMBER......most State/local elections have a VOTER TURNOUT OF ONLY 10% TO 30%........SO YOUR VOTE DEFINITELY COUNTS!!!! The JHO membership roll in California is probably over 30,000 and of course you can influence your spouse sooooooo......that could potentially double the JHO voters in California with a pro-hunter agenda. This whole hunter access thing/issue starts with your vote and that is where the low 10+% voter turnout comes in your pro-hunter favor.
'Nuff said
larrysogla

 

[easymoney]

Now we're getting somewhere... This is exactly the type of discussion and info sharing I have come to respect JHO for!
We as voters do have a say, IF we actually show up and vote.
And the shuffling use of general funds is a well guarded tactic all government uses to get what they want, to the diregard of the original intention.
Here locally there is a scandal brewing over the council of governments having been ratted out by Caltrans for buying a multi million dollar piece of property with highway funds, our gas taxes supposedly reserved for highway construction. Happens all the time.
I am in complete support of our DFG and know they are greatly underfunded. And as has been pointed out political appointees are really the ones writing policy and directing funds not the wardens or biologists.
Thanks for posting the language of the prop 589 for the under informed to view...

 

[83Yota]

I would pay 5 to 10.

 

[Fastshot]

$5-$15 seems pretty reasonable.


Just my :two cents:

 

[RIFLEMAN]

larrysgola,

Rifleman, Man I am amazed by your encyclopedic data/numbers in your head.

As much as I would love to be able to say that was true, my mind is too feeble for information like voting records to be kept among the cobwebs in my head...I always check leginfo.ca.gov to keep tabs on bills of interest.

Thanks for the wealth of knowledge you bring into JHO.

Glad to help. Jesse has fostered a great environment for everyone here, and we have a good bunch of folks as a result. What time I get to spend on JHO is time well spent in my estimation. My dogs keep me pretty busy, but when I'm not hunting, I love talking or reading about hunting.

NOW with the list of hunter friendly and NOT hunter friendly State Senators and Assemblymen, we should save it into our computer file everytime we come up with such hunter friendly/hunter unfriendly list and come next State/local election, vote in the hunter friendly candidates and vote out the hunter UNFRIENDLY candidates.

You are exactly right about identifying the candidates and legislators that are unfriendly to us, and we need to evaluate each individually. I don't shy away from calling a spade a spade, and will certainly say that Democrats are overwhelmingly responsible for most of the anti-gun/anti-hunting/animal rights efforts, but they are not our mortal enemy. This bill was bi-partisan if there ever was such a thing, having just a single No vote. Note that even the avowed anti-hunters/animal rights legislators (all Democrats, of course) such as Mark Leno voted in favor of this bill...pretty sad that they could support it but Schwarzenegger found a reason not to.

The JHO membership roll in California is probably over 30,000 and of course you can influence your spouse sooooooo......that could potentially double the JHO voters in California with a pro-hunter agenda. This whole hunter access thing/issue starts with your vote and that is where the low 10+% voter turnout comes in your pro-hunter favor.

Keep in mind that we should not only wait until the election to make our voices heard...we need to make sure we contact them regarding legislation of concern to us. While some folks do contact their representatives to share their opinion of how the vote should be cast, contacting all of the legislators after a vote is something that is often forgotten but equally effective at reinforcing positions favorable to our cause. Imagine the influence we could have if every member of JHO called prior to and after the votes cast on hunting/fishing/firearms bills!

 

[biseger]

Sounds like it will turn out much like the waterfowl drawings....... Crappy with low sucess. I guess throwing out 25 buck wont kill anybody I wasted $75 bucks on 0 reservations this year.

 

[builder]

A lot of things need to be cleared up before i would pay any amount.is this a working ranch,are thier crops,will primative camping be allowed,what's the estimated number of pigs on the property at any given time.besdies thinng the hog population does the rancher benefit financially in any way?the idea of limiting the number of hunters is a huge plus a far as i am concerned.that and the possibilty of expanding the program to other properties.thanks

 

[larrysogla]

builder,
I think the Original Poster(Marc, alias DFG Bear) already mentioned that the rancher/land owner is paid an access fee by the DFG. Hence, there is already the financial incentive to open up the private ranch/land for hunting on a limited basis. The alternative is NO ACCESS at all, since the rancher/landowner or anybody for that matter does not want to be bothered by the public for no benefit/financial reward in return. There has to be reasonable compensation/incentive for a person to open up his land to hunting access. If this works out smoothly and is financially rewarding to the landowner, it could attract/convince other landowners to open up hunter access also. There are no freebies especially in overpopulated California(unless you have a friend or relative who owns a ranch).
'Nuff said
larrysogla

 

[paintsign57]

I don't think 5-10 dollars will help the cause much. at least 25.00 for the chance to hunt private land sounds more likely. Also with public comes trash unfortunetly. So if the registration is sufficient. Maybe we will attract better character in our hunters. And possibly provide some type of service to the landowner for damage caused by hunters.:hog chewing:. MTC

 

[builder]

A lot of things need to be cleared up before i would pay any amount.is this a working ranch,are thier crops,will primative camping be allowed,what's the estimated number of pigs on the property at any given time.besdies thinng the hog population does the rancher benefit financially in any way?the idea of limiting the number of hunters is a huge plus a far as i am concerned.that and the possibilty of expanding the program to other properties.thanks

Larry when i posted this i didn't mention that i felt the landowner " shouldn't " be compensated.but having a ballpark figure might give myself and others a incentive to pay more for a chance to hunt the property. in spite of the fact that california hunters already pay some of the highest" resident fees among the western states.i read the posters statements regarding federal and pig tag revenue to pay for the program.and i still would like the other questions i raised answered before i make any decision as to how much i am willing to pay..honestly i am not a big fan of our DFG, i feel thier are a lot of things that can be done to inhance not only hog hunting but our declining deer herds also.but i am willing to give this program a chance in spite of this.

 

[84toyota]

Keep it simple.

Marc,
I think you need to keep it simple... Charge $5 for an application fee, which will allow a hunter to apply for any or all hunt periods. If successful in getting drawn, charge the hunter a reasonable fee - $25 would be nice! The economy is pretty rough right now... I don't think I would pay $5 to apply per hunt period... That could get really expensive if the hunts are difficult to draw. I imagine it will be a difficult draw - I've been putting in for East Park Reservoir and Joice Island and can't even draw those...
Thanks for all of your efforts. I would love to see additional opportunities to hunt private lands, much like other western states allow.

Ken

 

[DFG_Bear]

Thanks for the conversation and ideas

I've a meeting to discuss the SHARE program this afternoon, and your ideas will be the source of many topics of conversation. Thanks to all for your beneficial input.
Marc

 

[fishnhunt]

Thanks...Let us know the results!!