By JIM MATTHEWS

www.OutdoorNewsService.com
The Labrador retriever that sleeps on bed and curls up at my feet in my office when I work is a hunting dog. I use that term loosely. In the field, his nose helps me find upland birds, and when I make a lucky shot he’s pretty good at finding the downed game. His retrieving skills leave a little to be desired, but he’s getting better. Then there’s this: he is known to chase the occasional rabbit or bobcat in a half-hearted manner.

Under new legislation introduced into the California Senate last Thursday, my dog would be breaking the law if he chases a bobcat or bear, and a DFG warden could “dispatch” him.

Senate Bill 1221 introduced by Senator Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) is the latest anti-hunting bill to come out of our state legislature. It would ban the use of dogs to pursue black bears and bobcats in California, an activity that has been slowly dying out in this state for the past three decades. The bill is directly out of the Humane Society of the United States’ (HSUS) playbook to ban all hunting, fishing, and meat-eating in this country: chip away at the whole until you get it all. Divide and conquer.

And lie while you do it.

When the animal rights extremists didn’t get their way and win their battle to get Dan Richards fired as president of the California Fish and Game Commission for legally hunting mountain lions in another state, they got red in the face, stamped their feet, and threw a tantrum.

The result was some behind-closed-door meetings with anti-hunting, anti-use politicians and this piece of get-even legislation.

“The time has come for California to abolish this inhumane and unnecessary practice,” Lieu wrote in the press release touting the bill.

In the same press release, Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of HSUS was quoted as saying it was concerns about the hunting with “hounds that prompted California voters in 1990 to outlaw all trophy hunting of mountain lions. The same ethical issues are at work with bear and bobcat hunting.”

There are no ethical issues here. Animals chase other animals, and there’s no more trama when a bobcat is chased by coyotes as when chased by dogs. Little bears run away from big bears. The bottom line is simply this: Lieu and HSUS are against ALL hunting, and this is a way to tug at the heart strings of gullible members of the public to this ignorant and discriminatory legislation and generate donations to HSUS.

It is not about biology. Hunting certainly isn’t threatening populations of either species. In fact, bear numbers have been steadily trending upward in California under the Department of Fish and Game’s stringent hunting quota system. Even with harvests at the quota each year, the bear population has grown so much (doubling in the past 30 years), the DFG is this year suggested to the Fish and Game Commission that the quota be increased. Of course, this has annoyed the HSUS crowd, too. Thus, we have the Lieu legislation.

Lieu is quick to point out the bill is not aimed at my bird hunting dogs, which is more difficult for the anti-hunting crowd to paint as unethical. But those nasty hound hunters who run bears and bobcats up trees and shoot them, they are easy targets.

Interestingly, the use of hounds for the hunting all big game has been falling out of favor with hunters for decades. Using dogs for deer hunting is still legal in California, too, but I have never heard of anyone here using dogs for deer. The number of trained hound packs for the pursuit of bears and bobcats is about five percent of what it was when I first started outdoor writing in the 1970s. But why wait when you can use misrepresentations of facts to generate money for your cause, like the HSUS has done.

The HSUS has been effective in banning hound hunting in other states, including Colorado, where a black bear killed and ate a human after the bear population started expanding by leaps and bounds. Sure that was a fluke event. But would it have happened if hound hunting was still allowed in Colorado? We can’t answer that question. We can speculate that it probably would not have happened. Just like I can speculate that a game warden might shoot my dog or your dog if we are out for a walk and the dog chases a bobcat or bear. The reality? I’m honest enough to tell you the reality is there is zero possibility that will happen. I’m also honest enough to tell you the threat to public safety by a growing bear population is also approaching zero. Just like with problem mountain lions, the DFG will kill the problem bears if this bill passes. But instead of hunters doing the job for free, even making money for the state, the DFG will be tasked with the job, costing the state money.

This isn’t an issue of the humane treatment of dogs used to hunt bears and bobcats, or even the treatment of the bears and bobcats, like Lieu’s press release claims. It’s about an agenda that will eventually come to rest at everyone’s door step who hunts, fishes, or even prefers to eat meat. That is the HSUS agenda.

(Hunters and other sensible people who live in Lieu’s district, which includes the cities of Carson, El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance, as well as portions of Long Beach, Los Angeles and San Pedro, should take a minute to call his office and tell them how disappointed they are that Lieu has partnered up with the most virulent anti-hunting, anti-meat-eating organization in the world and sponsored SB 1221.)

By JIM MATTHEWS

www.OutdoorNewsService.com
Hereís more hypocrisy from the radical environmentalist community.

The usually ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals actually upheld Congressí power to order wolves removed from Endangered Species Act protection when it added a rider to the budget bill approved in April last year.

Of course, this caused an uproar with the extreme enviros and was challenged repeatedly in court.

All Congress effectively did was mandate what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists who had been in charge of relocating and monitoring the wolves have said for several years now: the wolves were recovered and management should be turned back over to the states.

But according to the environmental fringe, returning management back over to professional biologists in the states will be the beginning of an assault on wolves that will result in their total destruction. Again.

Does anyone else here in California find this at least mildly amusing?

Most of these same people were shouting for the resignation of Dan Richards, the president of the California Fish and Game Commission, because he legally hunted for a mountain lion in Idaho. Their rationale for his resignation was simple: Hunting lions has been illegal in California since 1972 because of legislative and initiative decrees. The said he was defying ìthe will of the people.

Continue reading →

By JIM MATTHEWS
www.OutdoorNewsService.com
Volunteers are needed to work on water-for-wildlife projects throughout Southern California this spring and early summer. The most active groups that have projects every month now through June are:

Cliff McDonald’s Water-For-Wildlife crew works in the east Mojave Desert in that big triangle of country between Needles, Barstow, and Las Vegas. His work crew typically restores three to six small game drinkers or guzzlers on weekend outings, and the next project is set for March 16-18 in the Old Woman Mountains south of Interstate 40 near Essex. The crew will also be doing projects in this region April 13-15, May 18-20, and June 8-10. For more information contact Cliff McDonald at 928-788-4107 or at bigmc@citlink.net.

Robert Armijo heads up the habitat work for the San Gabriel Chapter of Quail Unlimited. The group repairs guzzlers throughout the San Gabriel Mountains and into the extreme west Mojave Desert. They also recently started work on two “new” guzzlers in Riverside County, a project that had been on hold for lack of funding for over two years, but is now back on track with grants from the Riverside County Parks and Open Space Commission and the Temple City Sportsman. Those guzzlers may need more work in the coming month, but Armijo needs help on a whole list of projects this year. He can be reached at 626-664-6381 or at boutdoors4@yahoo.com.

The High Desert Chapter of Quail Forever has been restoring all of the guzzlers and developed springs in the West Mojave and north slope of the San Bernardino Mountains. On the docket for this year is one major spring restoration and several guzzlers that also require extensive work. Two guzzlers in a popular hunting area in the Ord Mountains are set for work in March. For information on the 2012 slate of work projects, contact club president John Shaver at 760-956-8169 or at josh4264@msn.com.

By JIM MATTHEWS

www.OutdoorNewsService.com
Dan Richards, the current president of the California Fish and Game Commission, is being assaulted by animal rights activists and liberal state legislators. They are asking for Richards to resign his unpaid position on the Commission because he legally hunted mountain lions in Idaho earlier this year.

They are saying that since mountain lion hunting is illegal in California, Richards should resign or be removed from his post on the Commission for something he did in Idaho, following all that state’s laws.

Their prejudicial rhetoric reeks of hypocrisy — none worse than those holding elected office in California.

Gavin Newsome, the Lt. Governor, wrote to Richards: “While not in California at the time, your actions call into question whether you can live up to the calling of your office. I do appreciate that you did nothing illegal in Idaho, but it is clear that your actions do not reflect the values of the people of California,” said Newsome asking for him to resign.

Yet, Newsome has vigorously fought Proposition 8, the initiative that banned gay marriage in California, but no one is asking him to resign because he doesn’t believe in this voter-approved mandate. Would he suggest a gay staff member who wed in another state resign his position? Of course not. But his action toward Richards is pure hypocrisy.

Fish and Game Commissioner Michael Sutton works for the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which stands to earn millions of dollars doing research in areas closed under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). In spite of this huge conflict of interest, Sutton repeatedly voted for the most restrictive closures when the Commission was hammering out the MLPA rules. No one in the legislature or the animal rights community asked Sutton to resign on principle. Yet, Richards, who works in real estate and development, has been criticized because he’s been an outspoken opponent of MLPA sportfishing closures on biological grounds and their impacts on the economy.

And now a list of 40 Democratic members of the assembly have signed on to a letter asking Richards to resign over the mountain lion incident. More hypocrisy.

The animal rights loons are even worse — but at least they’re not in public office. They simply don’t understand the facts and let their emotions get tangled up with reality. Here are some of their moronic comments:

On an animal rights blog, one said Richards’ hunt was “canned” and that the animal was wasted, being shot for no reason. The implication was that it simply wasn’t sporting or fair.

When it came out that a) Richards has been eating the lion and b) the hunt was long and grueling. The animal rights people still ridiculed him because they simply don’t believe anyone should hunt or eat meat – their real agenda.

(As a side note, I participated in an effort by the DFG using contract houndsmen to recapture a radio-collared mountain lion. It was the most brutal two days I’ve ever spent in the outdoors, following barking dogs up and down steep canyons and ridges, scrambling across rocky hillsides, and crashing through brush. We always knew where the cat was by the radio signal, but we never could capture the cat. It had been through that once before, and wasn’t about to let it happen again. Canned? Easy? You just walk up and shoot them out of a tree? That’s the animal rightists’ view of hound hunting. It’s simply a lie.)

A common thread has been that Richards shouldn’t sit on a Commission entrusted with the state’s wildlife. The reality is that the Fish and Game Commission’s primary responsibility has been to set hunting and fishing regulations based on the DFG’s scientific recommendations — except that they can’t do that now with mountain lions. While the DFG was muzzled during the debate over banning lion hunting, the DFG’s scientists have never suggested a hunting ban was necessary.

A typical comment came from Jennifer Fearing with the Humane Society of the United States’ California office. She said, “Dan Richards’ decision to not only hunt an animal whose protection has twice been approved by California voters… undermines Californians’ confidence in the state’s leadership and commitment to wisely managed natural resources.”

Whoa, there lady, California’s ban on lion hunting had nothing to do with “wisely managed resources.” The ban has effectively removed any sort of management of the species, and it has nearly doubled the number of big cats that are killed each year under these protections.

This is really about the animal rights’ activists thinly-veiled attempt to remove one of the last pro-hunting, pro-fishing Commissioners from the very Commission whose primary job is to set hunting and fishing regulations.

But Richards has vowed to fight for himself and sportsmen. In a letter sent to Assemblyman Ben Hueso, who initiated the request signed by 40 members of the assembly calling for Richards to resign, he said, “there is ZERO chance I would consider resigning my position.”

Richards went on to attack the logic and point out the hypocrisy of their request.

“Under your standards all Californians who enjoy gaming in Nevada are somehow ethically challenged as true Californians and should be removed from any official position. My guess is the legislative chambers might look a little barren should that logic prevail.”

MOUNTAIN LION BACKGROUND
Here are the simple facts about mountain lions and the banning of hunting them in California that has been bypassed in most media reports:

– Since 1972, there has been no sport hunting of the big cats in this state. When the Department of Fish and Game proposed a hunting season again in 1986, after doing surveys of the big cat population, animal rights activists protested to the Fish and Game Commission, stopped the season with political pressure, and then qualified a ballot initiative in 1990 (Proposition 117) that passed by a very narrow margin. Only 40 percent of registered voters participated in that election, and less than 25 percent of those eligible to vote passed judgement on the initiative. It passed with just 52 percent of the vote, meaning 48 percent voted against the legislation.

– During the last two legal hunting seasons for mountain lions in California in 1970 and 1971, there were 4,953 tags issued and just 118 mountain lions were killed, an average of 59 per year.

– In the 22 year period between 1990, when Proposition 117 passed, and 2011, there were 2,020 mountain lion were killed in California on specialy issued depredation permits. These lions were threatening or had killed humans, livestock, or domestic animals. An average of 92 cats per year die now. The number steadily grew from a low of just four permits issued and one lion killed in 1972, when sport hunting was first stopped in the regulatory process, through the peak in 2000, when 148 cats were killed under depredation permits in a single year. The annual average is far more than were taken by legal hunters each season in this state when the DFG was managing the big cats. Now all management options have been removed from the state agency, forcing action only when there’s a serious problem.

– Most interestingly, in the period between 1890 and 1972, when hunting was effectively banned, there were only three verified mountain lion attacks on humans. One was an attack by a rabid lion where both people died from rabies in 1908. A child was also killed in 1890. That means a total of just three attacks in California history before hunting was banned – and there were no attacks for the 76 years between 1908 and 1972. Since 1972, there have been at least 10 attacks, including three fatal attacks, and encounters have been steadily increasing.

There is a simple explanation for this, and it has little to do with human population growth: The big cats no longer fear humans. For well over 100 years, mountain lions were hunted as vermin. Throughout the state, houndsmen had trained packs of hounds to run the animals. They were harassed away from populated areas and were terrified by everything human. Hunters took fewer lions than are killed now because most cats had been chased, many treed (and not shot), and the cats avoided all human activity. That is no longer the case. The only thing Proposition 117 has done is put more humans in danger and kill more mountain lions.

The Mountain Lion Foundation and the Human Society of the United States (HSUS) staff and supporters, the primary pushers of the legislation that misled the public into voting for the ban, are animal rights zealots who have human and mountain lion blood on their hands.

You’d be hard-pressed to find a DFG biologist or game management staff member who supported or supports the mountain lion hunting ban that passed in 1990 because the initiative effectively tied the DFG’s hands in how they could manage the big cats in California. Today, the DFG are crisis managers when it comes to lions.

If the management of the big cats was left with the DFG, we would have fewer total mountain lions killed each year, the likelihood of human attacks would be minimal, and the DFG would be generating a significant income from the sale of mountain lion hunting tags.

California is the only state in the West that has banned the hunting of mountain lions, but the self-righteous arrogance of some state legislators and animal rights activists would have you believe all the other states’ models are wrong, even though the facts about biology and public safety would tend to support the other states’ actions.

THE NEXT ROUND
The battle is far from over for Dan Richards and those of us who still hunt and fish in California. The animal rights groups plan to protest and “demand” that Richards step down at the at the next Fish and Game Commission meeting being held beginning 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, March 7, at the Mission Inn, 3649 Mission Inn Ave., Riverside, in the San Diego Room. Ironically, this is the same meeting where the Commission will receive the DFG’s recommendations for fall mammal hunting regulation changes. I plan to be there as a hunter who supports Richards.