Questions about hunting blacktail does in CA.
05-05-2014, 07:57 AM
#32
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: ****ifornia
Posts: 5,052
I just got off the phone with our District Supervisor and nope DFG has never approached them about doing a doe management hunt. So like I said and was correct about, it doesn't matter if a county has Veto authority or not if the issue is never even brought to the table to veto.
05-05-2014, 09:06 AM
#33
Super Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 18,382
Did you bother to read the 2 links that Calhunter provided? They explicitly state that the counties can veto what the Dept of Fish and Game tries to do. That means they control doe hunting since even if the Dept of Fish and Game biologists say they need to do a doe hunt some idiot member of a county commission can say no. The same link also notes that CA Dept of Fish and Game wants to do more doe hunts but they don't even suggest them due to the fact the counties can veto them. Therefore, even the most clueless individual has to see that it is the counties and not the Dept of Fish and Game that decides if you can take a doe.
Yes and no. California has 58 counties. 37 counties have veto authority over what quotas (does, etc.) DFW (it used to be DFG) proposes. 21 counties don't have veto authority. Interestingly, all of the coveted X-zone (draw only) counties have veto authority.
DFW claims they "strive to propose doe hunts where they believe they're applicable yet they apparently don't propose (and then implement) doe hunts in the 21 counties that don't have county veto authority.
California is screwed up in a lot of ways but it would be a mistaken assumption to assume that DFW is honestly tries to do the best thing for hunting all the time. DFW has some hunters in their employ (including some of the top people) and some antis. They also tend to kowtow to political pressure as their department honestly doesn't have much political clout.
Suggesting that all Californians are alike is statistically unlikely and incorrect. If you look at a map showing conservative or Republican voting counties versus Democratic or liberal voting counties, you would be surprised. Almost half of the counties in any given election vote conservative but are outnumbered by the large population centers which all tend to vote liberal.
When I grew up in CA during the late 60's/early 70's, I remember walking down a country road with a shotgun, 22 rifle and/or pellet gun to go hunting, shooting, etc. and CHP would drive by and wave. I remember shooting pistols just outside of town on the side of the road and the police also drove by and waved. Itw as a different time back then but many rural counties are still quite conservative and don't agree on just about anything with the libs in the cities.
In the country, we still ride dirt bikes, cut firewood with chainsaws, shoot guns, hunt and would honestly like to separate our state into 2 separate states (keeping the libs in the other new state of course).
Do some Californians move to other states and attempt to add stupid CA laws? Of course. However, do some Californians move to other states and not want ANYTHING to change? Yes. In the future, my wife and I may be two of them.
As to local control, I guess if you want some idiot on a county commission with no training or education in wildlife management deciding what you can hunt, then you will like it. As for me, I want trained biologists making those decision instead of a housewife from Burbank that sits on a county commission.
I don't disagree with having trained biologists making those decisions but I also realize that those bilogists' recommendations go through the layer of bureaucracy BEFORE they go to a county with veto authority or are simply implemented in counties without veto authority.
If those 21 counties without veto authority all had doe hunts (None of them do), then I would concede this point to you quickly and would have already been discussing the issue with my county supervisors who do have veto authority.
Since none of those 21 counties without veto authority have doe hunts, I think any reasonable person would have to conclude there is something else besides veto authority holding up or preventing doe hunts. I don't have evidence or proof as to what is holding the process up BUT I think it's reasonable to "guess" that maybe DFW isn't being 100% honest on this subject. This is JMHO but I do look at information like this and try to make educated guesses or assumptions.
And you wonder why the rest the country laughs at CA and the people from there. Do us all a favor and stay there so you don't pollute the res the country with your screwed up ways.
Yes and no. California has 58 counties. 37 counties have veto authority over what quotas (does, etc.) DFW (it used to be DFG) proposes. 21 counties don't have veto authority. Interestingly, all of the coveted X-zone (draw only) counties have veto authority.
DFW claims they "strive to propose doe hunts where they believe they're applicable yet they apparently don't propose (and then implement) doe hunts in the 21 counties that don't have county veto authority.
California is screwed up in a lot of ways but it would be a mistaken assumption to assume that DFW is honestly tries to do the best thing for hunting all the time. DFW has some hunters in their employ (including some of the top people) and some antis. They also tend to kowtow to political pressure as their department honestly doesn't have much political clout.
Suggesting that all Californians are alike is statistically unlikely and incorrect. If you look at a map showing conservative or Republican voting counties versus Democratic or liberal voting counties, you would be surprised. Almost half of the counties in any given election vote conservative but are outnumbered by the large population centers which all tend to vote liberal.
When I grew up in CA during the late 60's/early 70's, I remember walking down a country road with a shotgun, 22 rifle and/or pellet gun to go hunting, shooting, etc. and CHP would drive by and wave. I remember shooting pistols just outside of town on the side of the road and the police also drove by and waved. Itw as a different time back then but many rural counties are still quite conservative and don't agree on just about anything with the libs in the cities.
In the country, we still ride dirt bikes, cut firewood with chainsaws, shoot guns, hunt and would honestly like to separate our state into 2 separate states (keeping the libs in the other new state of course).
Do some Californians move to other states and attempt to add stupid CA laws? Of course. However, do some Californians move to other states and not want ANYTHING to change? Yes. In the future, my wife and I may be two of them.
As to local control, I guess if you want some idiot on a county commission with no training or education in wildlife management deciding what you can hunt, then you will like it. As for me, I want trained biologists making those decision instead of a housewife from Burbank that sits on a county commission.
I don't disagree with having trained biologists making those decisions but I also realize that those bilogists' recommendations go through the layer of bureaucracy BEFORE they go to a county with veto authority or are simply implemented in counties without veto authority.
If those 21 counties without veto authority all had doe hunts (None of them do), then I would concede this point to you quickly and would have already been discussing the issue with my county supervisors who do have veto authority.
Since none of those 21 counties without veto authority have doe hunts, I think any reasonable person would have to conclude there is something else besides veto authority holding up or preventing doe hunts. I don't have evidence or proof as to what is holding the process up BUT I think it's reasonable to "guess" that maybe DFW isn't being 100% honest on this subject. This is JMHO but I do look at information like this and try to make educated guesses or assumptions.
And you wonder why the rest the country laughs at CA and the people from there. Do us all a favor and stay there so you don't pollute the res the country with your screwed up ways.
Vermont and Maine allow people incarcerated in prison to vote while they are serving time. Crazy huh?
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.r...ourceID=000286
Florida prohibits you from singing in a public place while wearing a bathing suit (that would never happen on Spring Break, right?), skateboard without a license (CA doesn't have such a requirement), fart in a public place after 6pm (guess you're at risk for lunch) or shower naked (even CA doesn't have shower police).
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/florida
How about Colorado though. Colorado recently voted to make marijuana legal and is trying to catch up with CA and NY on anti gun laws. It's also illegal to modify the weather without getting permission from adjoining states (must be some kind of mad scientist problem). A gallon of ice cream must weigh 4 & 1/2 pounds. And in Aspen, Colorado (snow capital of the world), it's apparently a crime to throw a snowball at a person or building (they must have feelings too).
http://realstrangelaws.com/dumb-laws/colorado/
IIRC, Flags, weren't you considering retiring in North Carolina or Alabama? If so, consider this:
In North Carolina, you have to pay a $3 tax on all "new white goods" brought into the state (whatever that is). You have to cook garbage before you feed it to swine (apparently this is different in NC from the rest of the country) and in Transylvania county, NC, a Dalmatian is considered a "potentially dangerous" breed of dog. I'm not sure why, maybe because they ride on fire trucks. Interestingly, pit bulls, wolves and other dog breeds aren't "potentially dangerous." Go figure.
http://realstrangelaws.com/dumb-laws/northcarolina/
In Alabama (terrific group by the way), if you spend more than 4 minutes in the voting booth, you can be asked to hurry up. It's illegal to play dominoes in pool halls in counties having less than 56, 500 population or more than 59K population (you just know there has to be one county that keeps careful track of its' county pop or else they'd have to get the law modified (AGAIN). Bear wrestling is illegal (there must have been some epidemic or something) and it's also illegal to "surgically alter a wrestling bear" but apparently not for a non-wrestling bear. ??????
http://realstrangelaws.com/dumb-laws/alabama/
This has been kind of tongue in cheek but I think you get the idea. Stupidity and silliness isn't confined to any particular state. I'm sure California's problem of large liberal population centers outnumbering and outvoting rural conservative areas is likely replicated in most other states. Consider Colorado for instance. I'd bet that all of their recent stupid anti gun and marijuana laws are the product of large, liberal, urban (city) areas with lots of native libs and lots or liberal transplants voting. It's kind of the same with California. Yes, at one time, LOTS of people moved TO California and then screwed it up for the rest of us.
05-06-2014, 04:53 PM
#37
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,230
30 years ago you could never have got that gun control B.S. pushed through. in 1992 the displaced idiots from CA were successful in eliminating the spring bear hunt and most trapping. As they came in they drove up property taxes because they sold property in CA and had to buy in CO and they had more $$$ than brains. I know a rancher in Glenwood Springs that sold a transplant a couple of acres for the view of MT. Sopris for a high amount because the transplant kept hounding him. The county then taxed the entire ranch at that value and a long time family ranch was ruined because some idiot wanted a view.
You say you visited CO for years before you moved there. Are you really trying to tell me that you don't see a difference in the state in that timeframe? You're either blind or a liar if you don't and it ain't changed for the better.
And, I'm from the town of Peetz in Logan County and that isn't anywhere near Denver. Nice try.
By the way, I still notice you really don't have anything relevant to say about the topic of shooting blacktail does in the Land of Fruits, Flakes and Nuts. Guess you don't know much about it.
As to this:
I just got off the phone with our District Supervisor and nope DFG has never approached them about doing a doe management hunt.
05-06-2014, 05:47 PM
#38
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 9,557
Just the answer I was looking for. Now I can make my point.
Do you think someone who's been hunting all his life fits your description of the Californian who ruined Colorado? Of course I don't, or anybody else who's on a hunting forum who'd a hunter.
Yet, you like to group anybody from California in one group. Pretty damn sad.
Yes, i've noticed what happened to Colorado over the years. I'm a bear hunter, and would love the spring season back. I still love it here, and have no desire to live anywhere else. I have friends here i've known for over 50 years.
I'm talking to you in this thread. Not the OP, so I have nothing to say on the topic. Sue me for the hijack.
Do you think someone who's been hunting all his life fits your description of the Californian who ruined Colorado? Of course I don't, or anybody else who's on a hunting forum who'd a hunter.
Yet, you like to group anybody from California in one group. Pretty damn sad.
Yes, i've noticed what happened to Colorado over the years. I'm a bear hunter, and would love the spring season back. I still love it here, and have no desire to live anywhere else. I have friends here i've known for over 50 years.
I'm talking to you in this thread. Not the OP, so I have nothing to say on the topic. Sue me for the hijack.
05-06-2014, 06:57 PM
#39
Spike
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Winston County, AL
Posts: 84
I may regret this later, but here goes.
That's a bit of a red herring, though, isn't it? I'm pretty sure the rancher wasn't forced or coerced to sell; he very well could have kept refusing. Do they not have restraining orders in Colorado? Surely at the very least he should have asked a lawyer or CPA or realtor if it might possibly affect his tax assessment. So I'm not sure this is a good example of "more money than brains" on the part of the buyer. Maybe, but also "more land than brains" on the part of the rancher, surely. Who can fault a person wanting a piece of land with a view? Since when is that a dumb thing to want? Such a thing is certainly not unique to Californians. Isn't this about the same as "Pike's Peak or Bust"?
As for Alabama, we're pretty screwed up -- although it's the conservatives who have done it, in the name of making things "better". Our legislators... Well, in the interest of avoiding libel or slander, I'll stop with "I don't think their ideas are wise." Which just goes to show no state is perfect, not California, not Colorado, and not Alabama. I'm willing to bet other parts of the country are the same way.
As they came in they drove up property taxes because they sold property in CA and had to buy in CO and they had more $$$ than brains. I know a rancher in Glenwood Springs that sold a transplant a couple of acres for the view of MT. Sopris for a high amount because the transplant kept hounding him. The county then taxed the entire ranch at that value and a long time family ranch was ruined because some idiot wanted a view.
As for Alabama, we're pretty screwed up -- although it's the conservatives who have done it, in the name of making things "better". Our legislators... Well, in the interest of avoiding libel or slander, I'll stop with "I don't think their ideas are wise." Which just goes to show no state is perfect, not California, not Colorado, and not Alabama. I'm willing to bet other parts of the country are the same way.