SB1221 HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO HOGS AND ALL MAMALS

[bobcatdan]

Email Governor Brown TODAY! He has only a little time left to act on this odious bill

Select SB1221 from drop down menu, hit "submit" and an comment box will open with a pro or con button. Hit "Con" and add whatever remarks you want. Please be polite and informed in any remarks you add.

http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php

 

[kcravnit]

Done!!!!!

 

[Troggy92]

yup me too.

 

[Hoghuntr]

And one more.

 

[jls456]

Done.

 

[Stonepointer]

Should this only be sent once?

I sent the form letter in a few days back, and also linked it to some of my relatives and friends that live in this state. Hopefully they have sent it in also.

They included all mammals, is it just large mammals, or does that mean if a dog goes after a rabbit, squirrel, or other small game mammals, it would be in violation and the owner would be cited?

I can't think of any dog at all, even small ones, that would not do that.

If that is the case, that is one extremely stupid law.

 

[Stonepointer]

Really it should not matter whether it affects one type of hunting right now.

These clowns have all hunting in mind to be banned.

This is just another step towards that.

All you other hunters wake up and send this in to try and get this vetoed.

If hunting is part of your pursuit of happiness, do your best to turn this around.

 

[californiabull]

done

 

[HOGHUNTER714]

Done

 

[#1Predator]

[h=2]"SB1221 HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO HOGS AND ALL MAMMALS"[/h]Ahh...nope, not exactly. This is a bad law without a doubt but if we are going to talk about this law let's make sure we have our information correct. Here's the link to the law as it was passed by the Senate on August 27, 2012.

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20110SB122196ENR

Read this new law carefully. Here is a sample (very small sample) of what the new law contains:

3032. (a) As used in this section:
(1) "Bear" and "pursue" have the same meanings as defined in
Section 3960.
(2) "Hound" means a dog used to pursue mammals.
(b) The commission may establish a hound tag program.
(c) If a hound tag program is established, the commission may
require all of the following:
(1) That each hound be issued a license tag bearing a unique
identifying number that is to be worn at all times by the hound while
pursuing mammals.
(2) That all relevant local and state laws pertaining to dogs are
being followed while the hound is being used to pursue mammals.

ETC.,
ETC.,
ETC.


There are four new sections that will be added to the Fish and Game Code if SB1221 becomes law and (possibly) new fees established for the use of "hounds" in addition to banning the use of hounds for bear and bobcat hunting.

 

[TonyS]

The problem is #1, that once they start on bear and bobcat dogs what is to stop them from next outlawing bird dogs? Nothing, it achieves the HSUS objective of banning hunting in California.

I posted the email address several times on several boards for the Govenor and emailed him. Did you?

 

[cjack]

I too have done this. Thanks bobcatdan, you have made it so simple for us to respond. Everyone needs to take a minute and address this problem.

 

[#1Predator]

The problem is #1, that once they start on bear and bobcat dogs what is to stop them from next outlawing bird dogs? Nothing, it achieves the HSUS objective of banning hunting in California.

I posted the email address several times on several boards for the Govenor and emailed him. Did you?

Tony, I totally agree with you. I can see the HSUS objectives in the current bill. The DFG registering "hounds"? The "hounds" need to have microchips? Really!?!? What's the purpose of registering and microchiping hounds? Testing (and licensing????) the owners of the "hounds" before allowing them to run their dogs? Really? Why? What possible biological reason could there be for this nonsense? Is a "hound" at the same level as a firearm so that each hound must have its own serial number and each owner must be tested before they can use their dogs? Really? Is that what we've come to?

Yes, I have sent emails to the governor as well as my state assemblyman and state senator. I outlined exactly why this bill would be a wildlife management mistake (California's bear population is around 35,000 and has shown a steady 2% annual increase (roughly 700 bear increase in the population annually for the last two decades with the killing of 1,500 bears annually)) as well as a financial mistake. The costs of setting up and maintaining a "hound" and owner registry as well as the increased costs of handling bear/human incidents (like closing down the I-210 last week because a bear wandered on to the freeway) not to mention the loss of bear tag sales will have an impact on the DFG budget. By the way, this bill seeks to increase the cost of a bear tag to offset the additional costs to the DFG. Really? So a resident bear tag will cost, what, $150-$200 maybe? Yeah sure, that'll do it. I'm sure bear tag sales will be as strong as ever.

I doubt my input will have any affect on the outcome. Both of my state representatives are Republicans so they didn't vote for the bill anyway but maybe they can convince the governor to leave the bill unsigned. If not, like you said Tony, this is but a small step toward a greater HSUS goal.

 

[PhrogDriver]

Great forum to advertise the democratic process. Done!

 

[BrittGSP818]

Done!!!

 

[Huntr Pat]

I wont be running my dogs in California after the end of this year in the bear woods. I wont buy a bear tag here in California. If someone pooch escape from their campground and chase a deer and a warden see it. That dog is dead it gave the warden the approval to kill it. Now who's in humane the warden or the Senator Lieu.

 

[oldskool67]

Done, thanks for the easy link !

 

[johndoe]

Done.