CAlifornia Looks to Enlist Hunters in Wildlife Conservation Push

[richhodg66]

Interesting.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-encourages-hunting-in-bid-to-change-public-perception-increase-revenue-for-conservation-report?fbclid=IwAR1TVpvB9bZgSKgDlLYudNT_huG4fRAgHo U6GU5RxvhUVSG5c7SoWucySHY

[dale2242]

I am glad to see this.
Oregon is encouraging youth to hunt by offering reduced prices for licenses and tags.
They also offer special youth hunts.
An adult sports pack is right at $190.
A youth sports pack is $55....dale

[trails4u]

So.....what's their plan? Teach kids to throw rocks at animals? Explain to the young buck that his staying alive is a micro-aggression against the unskilled hunter, and that he can only make it right by falling over dead?

Don't get me wrong, the idea of recruiting hunters is a GREAT idea which I obviously support....but geez, a state that wants to ban everything that might even slightly resemble a firearm, and now that want to recruit more hunters????? :groner: Talk about crappy messaging.

[redhawk0]

The plan is likely to sniff out the gun owners. They will be the first ones visited in a state-wide confiscation ring.

redhawk

[Sig556r]

CBs are not allowed in public lands over there, only lead-free ammo, so not even Js

[toallmy]

Never trust the state of California , I'm sure there is a hidden agenda !

[megasupermagnum]

They outlawed everything you need to hunt, and now they wonder why hunters are declining? That's like in my area, we ruined a number of local lakes, introduced some ** invasive species laws, and now wonder why fisherman are driving through town on the way to other parts of the state. In our case it is a large number of rich, grumpy lake shore owners complaining about people fishing "their" lake. I imagine California is not so different.

[Springfield]

The "hidden agenda" is that hunting is way down and the state has cut the budget for everyone, and the Outdoor Agencies want the money, so they are trying to get the hunters back as they are a good cash crop. Most of the younger crowd here now are not into the shooting sports, but they also don't donate money to preserve the environment. If they can't do it on an I-Phone they aren't interested. It is much the same throughout the country, just look at the average age of the bullet casters here.

[skeettx]

AND so it will continue to go and the predators will get out of control
and the eco-system will crash and they will have to raise taxes to hire
control agents that are not respected

[tinhorn97062]

Having lived in Oregon, Washington, Texas, and now California....I find a lot of the typical California comments amusing. There’s more to California than LA and SF.

Springfield is correct.
Everything needed to hunt is not banned in this state.
California doesn’t have any hidden agenda, in fact the “agenda” you’re likely talking about is a very open one. Politicians here don’t seem to sugarcoat their agendas.
This state doesn’t want to ban anything that slightly resembles a firearm.

Sooo many assumptions from people who live thousands of miles away.

[JBinMN]

Having lived in Oregon, Washington, Texas, and now California....I find a lot of the typical California comments amusing. There’s more to California than LA and SF.

Springfield is correct.
Everything needed to hunt is not banned in this state.
California doesn’t have any hidden agenda, in fact the “agenda” you’re likely talking about is a very open one. Politicians here don’t seem to sugarcoat their agendas.
This state doesn’t want to ban anything that slightly resembles a firearm.

Sooo many assumptions from people who live thousands of miles away.

Really? I find that underlined sentence above relatively hard to take, based on what I read from others who actually live in CA. ( or even if applied to Ore., Wash., since you mentioned them in particular & after knowing folks in those additional states who are fighting all sorts of restrictions, basically creating "bans" there as well, even if regard to ammunition restrictions.)

Within the confines of the topics subject, would you care to elaborate?

I am not looking for an argument, only some clarification on what you appear to be saying here.

[9.3X62AL]

Oh, Tinhorn......so right you are. I am just a short drive north of you in Redlands. My family has been in this area (San Bernardino Valley) since 1865. MSM's impressions of Californians--transmitted to the rest of the nation and world 24/7/365--is no more accurate than the rest of its drivel and propaganda.

I welcome these gestures toward recruitment of young hunters as a tacit admission of failure. The Progressive Tree-Hugger portion of the state's River City apparatchikis' dream of preserving wildlife through tofu and rice-cake social events and feel-good consciousness-raising is a non-starter. That ain't how the real world works--there's too much month left at the end of the money. Wildlife managers have known since forever that the most reliable funding source for their ongoing efforts has been sales of fishing and hunting licenses. Regulations like non-toxic shot and bullets restrictions don't stop hunting one iota--those regs just encourage people to hunt elsewhere, which retards license sales, which depletes wildlife management funding.

ANYTHING that re-establishes reality within California government is a welcome departure from its usual dystopian unicorns & rainbows delusion sequence.

[JBinMN]

Oh, Tinhorn......so right you are. I am just a short drive north of you in Redlands. My family has been in this area (San Bernardino Valley) since 1865. MSM's impressions of Californians--transmitted to the rest of the nation and world 24/7/365--is no more accurate than the rest of its drivel and propaganda.

I welcome these gestures toward recruitment of young hunters as a tacit admission of failure. The Progressive Tree-Hugger portion of the state's River City apparatchikis' dream of preserving wildlife through tofu and rice-cake social events and feel-good consciousness-raising is a non-starter. That ain't how the real world works--there's too much month left at the end of the money. Wildlife managers have known since forever that the most reliable funding source for their ongoing efforts has been sales of fishing and hunting licenses. Regulations like non-toxic shot and bullets restrictions don't stop hunting one iota--those regs just encourage people to hunt elsewhere, which retards license sales, which depletes wildlife management funding.

ANYTHING that re-establishes reality within California government is a welcome departure from its usual dystopian unicorns & rainbows delusion sequence.

I will ask the same of you, AL.

Will you elaborate more than you jut did about there is no attempts to restrict to the point of basically a "ban" on "anything that slightly resembles a firearm.", in CA., or any other of the states mentioned, West Coast ones in particular, as Tinhorn put it?

Once again, no argument, just info.

[tinhorn97062]

I will ask the same of you, AL.

Will you elaborate more than you jut did about there is no attempts to restrict to the point of basically a "ban" on "anything that slightly resembles a firearm.", in CA., or any other of the states mentioned, West Coast ones in particular, as Tinhorn put it?

Once again, no argument, just info.

Guns are bought and sold here every day. There are certainly restrictions, which i find repulsive, but the blanket statement made above about "banning anything resembling a weapon" is just a far cry from accurate. I can even get a CCL in my county if i wanted to, and my county actually ENCOURAGES citizens to apply.

Im sure you've read and heard a lot, but much of it needs to be taken with some salt. Texas, for example, is romanticized as being "free" and "wild". I found a state with fences around everything, making it nearly impossible to enjoy the outdoor recreation that California offers me.

I'm able to go to a shooting range whenever I want to. I'm able to go out to the woods/desert and shoot outdoors if I want to. The weapons here that are banned/restricted don't matter to me, because I don't own any and I have no use for them.

I dont know if any of that helped clarify or not.

[JBinMN]

Tinhorn,

Yes, you helped with some clarification. Thanks!
:)

That said, I might mention that I am one who is against "any restriction" ( "infringement") on our 2A rights, & from what I understand, CA Sen. Fienstein, Rep.s Pelosi, & Schiff, et al., as Fed. Legislators, among others who are CA state legislators, are pressing once again, more legislation to restrict or ban firearms, not only Nationally, but in CA. as well.

This is why I was confused about CA. & the impression that most firearms owners from Ca & the other states mentioned, have the same stance as I do.

I would like to add that your not being concerned with firearms restrictions ( or bans) that are proposed, or are banned, since you do not own or shoot any of them, does concern me a bit.

I would like to remind that not being concerned about something that is being threatened with regulations or bans because it doesn't affect "you", but does affect others similar to you, often leads to more restrictions & bans on the items that you do own & like. Particularly with firearms & the 2nd amendment.

Please, look at my signature file below for the W. Churchill quote" & please consider what may happen if we do not ALL try to keep our rights together, even if the infringements or the possibility of them may not have an affect right now, on some folks, it certainly may have an effect on them in the future.
;)

So, I urge you to re-consider that stance you just mentioned about things that do not currently affect you.

----------------------

Further on the topic of CA legislation & policies regarding hunting. It makes little sense to me , why legislators are urging folks to hunt, while at the same time restricting the ability for those who wish to hunt to do so. Restricting firearms & ammunition sales thru the internet, in local stores, etc., but then trying to get folks to use such restricted items to hunt is kind of loopy thinking to me.

It is like trying to get folks to stop using straws, but promoting drinking beverages that would likely require a straw. Or, perhaps, wanting folks to reduce weight & supposedly eat healthier by eating more vegetables, by restricting farming to vegetables & fruits, then promoting beef, pork & poultry farming in the state.
( those might seem a bit off for analogies/examples, but so is the idea of restricting things then promoting using them.)

I guess it just seems a bit lamebrained & hypocritical to me.

[megasupermagnum]

Having lived in Oregon, Washington, Texas, and now California....I find a lot of the typical California comments amusing. There’s more to California than LA and SF.

Springfield is correct.
Everything needed to hunt is not banned in this state.
California doesn’t have any hidden agenda, in fact the “agenda” you’re likely talking about is a very open one. Politicians here don’t seem to sugarcoat their agendas.
This state doesn’t want to ban anything that slightly resembles a firearm.

Sooo many assumptions from people who live thousands of miles away.

The problem with California is that your state wants to tell the rest of the world how to live. Lead of any kind is banned from public hunting grounds there, correct me if I'm wrong. Background checks on buying ammo this year. I guess it is possible to buy ammo, and you could always hunt with a spear. At some point it becomes such a pain in the rear that people just say screw it.

State doesn't want to ban anything that resembles a firearm? Who keeps electing Nancy Peloci?

My dad lived 2 years in California, I want to say 1978-1980ish. The state was ruined back then. There's a reason we live thousands of miles away. I feel bad for those with obligations stuck there, but you clearly want to live in California. Good luck with that.

[popper]

When I was in Ca in the 60s, ammo & guns were OK but finding public prop. that wasn't posted due to fire ban was very difficult.

[JoeJames]

The problem with California is that your state wants to tell the rest of the world how to live. Lead of any kind is banned from public hunting grounds there, correct me if I'm wrong. Background checks on buying ammo this year. I guess it is possible to buy ammo, and you could always hunt with a spear. At some point it becomes such a pain in the rear that people just say screw it.

State doesn't want to ban anything that resembles a firearm? Who keeps electing Nancy Peloci?

My dad lived 2 years in California, I want to say 1978-1980ish. The state was ruined back then. There's a reason we live thousands of miles away. I feel bad for those with obligations stuck there, but you clearly want to live in California. Good luck with that.Background checks on buying ammo? Are you kidding me?

[megasupermagnum]

It looks like it starts this year. To top it off, it costs the buyer each time.

[brewer12345]

Background checks on buying ammo? Are you kidding me?

But nobody wants to take away your guns...

[hicard]

We can't even buy ammo from Midway or Cabelas anymore. We have buy it from a locked retail cabinet and have it escorted to the register and pay a high price for it before it is handed over to us.

[mattw]

I can see why a young person might be less inclined to hunt. My 16 yo daughter enjoys hunting but takes an endless level of **** from students and teachers at school... for what? 1)kids should not have access to guns, 2)why kill and eat a cute furry animal and 3)your parents are idiots (and other names) for allowing you access to guns. One of her teachers cornered me at the school and told me how bad a parent I am because I taught her to shoot pistols and "automatic" weapons. She did not even get that part right. But, was willing to imply that she would report me to DCFS because I allow my kids exposure to weapons!

[toallmy]

I suppose it's getting harder to keep blaming the hunters for all the environmental problems blamed on the hunters over the years when there are so few left .

[9.3X62AL]

The fire bans have been relaxed since the 1960s. I can't read the minds of the prog/lib zealots that foist arms restrictions upon the law-abiding, because I lack the telling advantage of a delusional mindset that makes such pretzel logic viable. Prog/lib mindsets are basically that of control freaks--everything not made mandatory is automatically prohibited. It is mental illness. Politics is humanitiy's ball and chain--Edward Abbey.

We get that.

We live here. That is all. We don't advocate for the BakerSamuel arms restrictions any more than you do. I own and enjoy new-pattern rifles to the extent allowed by CA law. I have a really uncomfortable question for NRA and the balance of the other less-restrictive states and their residents--if you feel so strongly about CA's sustained pattern of civil rights violations against gun owners, if you fear that our idiot-wind legislation will spread to your vicinity, why don't you GET OFF YOUR DYING ASPIRATIONS and insist upon sanctions against CA state governments like those that resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965? NRA and gun owners in other states talk a good game, but they don't do JACK. 12% of NRA members are Californians--1 in 8. Do Californians get 1/8 of NRA's lobbying power? Do they derive 1/8 of NRA's benefits? HARDLY. All NRA does is take our money and besiege its members with solicitations for more money that won't get spent defending our civil rights. NRA has done a great job keeping the gun rights of tidewater Virginia in order--where most of NRA brass lives and works. When--and if ever--NRA notches a win in California that CRPA didn't already do the legwork on, I will give credit where credit is due. And not until then. In the meantime, I hope NRA doesn't hyper-extend an elbow patting itself on the back. Stop being such NIMBYs, and be genuine American patriots.

[EDG]

I found that the Walmart store in Yreka, Ca. in the far north end of the state near the Oregon border has zero firearms. It had zero metallic ammo that I can remember. It did have some steel shot water fowl loads but that was about all so I have to disagree with you based on what I have actually seen there. That area is about as far as you can get from San Francisco and I could find no active gun shops.


Having lived in Oregon, Washington, Texas, and now California....I find a lot of the typical California comments amusing. There’s more to California than LA and SF.

Springfield is correct.
Everything needed to hunt is not banned in this state.
California doesn’t have any hidden agenda, in fact the “agenda” you’re likely talking about is a very open one. Politicians here don’t seem to sugarcoat their agendas.
This state doesn’t want to ban anything that slightly resembles a firearm.

Sooo many assumptions from people who live thousands of miles away.

[JoeJames]

I found that the Walmart store in Yreka, Ca. in the far north end of the state near the Oregon border has zero firearms. It had zero metallic ammo that I can remember. It did have some steel shot water fowl loads but that was about all so I have to disagree with you based on what I have actually seen there. That area is about as far as you can get from San Francisco and I could find no active gun shops.That is scary indeed. "Common sense" gun control - huh?

[9.3X62AL]

I found that the Walmart store in Yreka, Ca. in the far north end of the state near the Oregon border has zero firearms. It had zero metallic ammo that I can remember. It did have some steel shot water fowl loads but that was about all so I have to disagree with you based on what I have actually seen there. That area is about as far as you can get from San Francisco and I could find no active gun shops.

And this 'proves' exactly what? If Wal-Mart is a base line of assessment for any consumer goods of any type, we are in real trouble.

[GregLaROCHE]

Ça. is only doing it for the revenue. And maybe to find out who has guns. Otherwise it’s a really great idea to get youth involved. I hope it turns out positive for us, who believe in having guns.

[JBinMN]

9.3X62AL,

Hell, I did not mean to set ya off. I am not even quoting the post ya made, after I asked ya to elaborate.

I thought it was a pretty good question. As far as I understand, CA is one of the "headliners" for "infringing" on the 2A. Not only in regard to firearms, but ammunition as well.

If they are not, as I understood your earlier post to mean, all I asked was to learn more from your point of view.

Don't be "blowing a gasket" on us, please. Forget about it.... Not worth a trip to the ER.

I , among others, kind of like most of the folks who hang around here.
;)

[9.3X62AL]

You didn't set me off, JB. Gaskets are intact, and compression ratio is unchanged. My text was just the genuine expressions of a firearms hobbyist in enemy country. I don't imagine that East Berliners would taken too kindly to being talked down to by residents of the American, British, or French sectors of the city during the Soviet era, either.

[trails4u]

Having lived in Oregon, Washington, Texas, and now California....I find a lot of the typical California comments amusing. There’s more to California than LA and SF.

Springfield is correct.
Everything needed to hunt is not banned in this state.
California doesn’t have any hidden agenda, in fact the “agenda” you’re likely talking about is a very open one. Politicians here don’t seem to sugarcoat their agendas.
This state doesn’t want to ban anything that slightly resembles a firearm.

Sooo many assumptions from people who live thousands of miles away.

I'll disagree with that....they very much do, and eventually will if Californians continue to accept the 'steps' toward their end goal.

And I accept your criticism of me, from afar, as valid. But...I worked in San Bernardino for five years, and have a brother in Big Bear. I might be 3,000 miles away today, but that's on purpose.

[Duckiller]

Walmart can't sell guns because they won't hire people that are smart enough to follow state and federal laws. They gave up their FFLs in CA because employees were not following the law. They didn't think it was necessary that friends and neighbors endure 10 day wait periods. This happened about 15-20 years ago.

[Elkins45]

California bashing is fun, isn’t it?

As yet I have seen no proposals to ban bolt action rifles being put forth in California. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of people who would welcome it (as there are in even the deep red southern states) but they don’t have any traction.

This thread sounds like it’s headed to the pit.

[JBinMN]

You didn't set me off, JB. Gaskets are intact, and compression ratio is unchanged. My text was just the genuine expressions of a firearms hobbyist in enemy country. I don't imagine that East Berliners would taken too kindly to being talked down to by residents of the American, British, or French sectors of the city during the Soviet era, either.

Gotcha. Don't let the small stuff get at ya, though. Not worth the time.
;)

[Static line]

Really? My long time Vietnam squad buddy can't even own a BB gun where he lives in San Diego and we want to believe a Californian of what he says about it? Not me. From thousands of miles away," California,wake up"!

[Bigslug]

I think the headline of that article is a little misleading. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife certainly wants to promote hunting, as that's where their bread and butter is. They're certainly the most informed bunch in the state government as far as what it's all about, and the DFW cops I've met in the field really ARE about checking poachers and helping those who color inside the lines fill their tags.

Now for the REST of the state. . .I've been a firearms professional in one way or another since 1992 and have been front and center for the the following:

We restrict autoloading rifles on how they look

We restrict magazines on what they hold

We restrict handguns based on how many impediments to making it fire can be installed by the manufacturer. We have three kinds of autoloading pistols here: a declining number of grandfathered pistols that were on the State's "Safe Handgun" roster before the feature requirements got stupid; pistols that have magazine cutoffs, key locks, high visibility LCI's, and a manual safety - even if they have a DAO trigger; and the used, secondhand market, which can often command a premium if it's a desirable, non-roster gun.

Anything NFA is restricted to LE agency purchase only, or to movie industry rental houses that can afford the staggering permit fees.

We've been restricting ammo to pay-at-the-register sales, and are about to start restricting ammo with background checks and fees to do them.

The CCW process is lengthy, costly, and requires a renewal every two years, vs. minimal costs, no hassle and a 5-7 year renewal in much of Free America. Whether it goes anywhere or not remains to be seen, but I hear one of our state congresscritters is trying to mandate carrying a multi-million dollar insurance policy with your CCW. . .while at the same time we seem unwilling to keep felons in jail until they are caught with AT LEAST five murdered bodies in their freezer.

And as of this year, they'll probably fine you if you use a lead pellet to shoot a grasshopper off the tomatoes in your back yard. I've been using Barnes copper bullets on deer, and they work great, but the expense and hassle of them to anyone who casually hunts and isn't clearly understanding of zero changes will drive them out of the sport. A lot of old shotguns have barrels you do NOT want to shoot steel through, and that or the tin/bismuth option is going to hit your wallet HARD if you go where the dove are thick. Hunting with cast in your old, odd-bore-diameter black powder single shot? I'm looking into the emerging system that might allow us to hunt with tin/bismuth alloys after we send in a picture of our bullet. How that flies with spot checks in the field will remain to be seen.

So yeah, there are branches of the state government tasked with enforcing all of this horse**** that draw their paychecks from its various fees, and they are probably scratching their heads at their declining budgets as more and more Californians decide not to play, or decide to play elsewhere. The state government at large, however, probably couldn't be happier. It is unquestionably a cultural war in which the undesirables are being driven out, driven underground, and not creating future generations who participate.

If you want to get an inkling for what it might have felt like to be gay, Jewish, and black on the streets of Berlin in 1937, try being a law-abiding gun owner in California.

[dale2242]

Let`s all get negative !!!
The people that run the CDF&W are a far cry from the legislators in Sacramento that come from the big cities.
I`m quite surprised that so few of you can see the good in this....dale

[Texas by God]

Tinhorn, 90% of Texas is private property (and we like it that way). My Brother in law and wife live near Redlands on the way up the hill to Big Bear. Beautiful country. First visit I wanted to hike up the mountain, was told not without a permit. And so it goes. Can you go to the gun store today and carry out your newly purchased handgun? I doubt it. Can you burn a fallen tree or brush to eliminate wildfire fuel? Doubt it. I can't take inherited guns to him without risking arrest. And you don't care if ARs/ AKs are banned because it doesn't affect you? Sounds a little elitist.I've met lots of conservatives out there; love to visit; but no- I wouldn't live there. BTW-B&SIL are looking to move to N Arizona. They've had their fill of it after 28 years. It reminds me of New York State; the cities get to decide for the state how things will be. And those who own guns and vote Donkey are the worst kind of idiot!

[Winger Ed.]

Texas, for example, is romanticized as being "free" and "wild". I found a state with fences around everything, making it nearly impossible to enjoy the outdoor recreation that California offers me.

When Texas joined the Union, it gave up all the land North and West of what it's border is now,
that used to be about a third of N. America, next door to the Louisiana Purchase.

The condition was that the federal govt. couldn't own any land inside the new border. It does now, but not much.
In the old days, the govt. commonly/partially paid people with land grants.
With almost everything being privately held now, state or federal land for public hunting is a little scarce.

[Duckiller]

I wouldlike to know where in San Diego that you can't buy a BB gun. I can see cities limiting where you can shoot a BB gun but can't buy one? Even our new governor is not that crazy,yet.

[T_McD]

And this 'proves' exactly what? If Wal-Mart is a base line of assessment for any consumer goods of any type, we are in real trouble.

While I agree with your overall sentiment on this thread, Walmart is a pretty good baseline for nearly ALL consumer goods. The fact that a Walmart (according to previous poster) doesn’t carry any lead ammo would be quite odd.

[tinhorn97062]

I was at Walmart in Escondido a couple days ago. There was lead ammo aplenty. Same with Walmart in Temecula, along with several different types of powder, primers, dies, ect.