(“Closing” opens them up to hunting)
ALERT: This is an urgent request to all who appreciate and value wildlife to submit comments to oppose any California Department of Fish and Game’s (
A public “opinion poll” is being conducted by CA’s
For information from
Comments may also be submitted via email: firstname.lastname@example.org
“Evaluation” of the Status of Existing State Game Refuges
Lack of public outreach and/or education:
1—Little-to-no public outreach or education has taken place, and there are no scientific studies for the public to review—
3— The survey states that the legislature directed
Reasons to OPPOSE and submit comments by December 1, 2010 deadline:
3—Even if other agencies manage refuges differently, an important lawsuit should lead to changes that
a. The refuges have value for wildlife of many species and for citizens who wish to enjoy wildlife watching or other non-consumptive activities in nature without concerns for dodging errant bullets or arrows. Hunting by its nature kills the “trophy” animals—those with the strongest genetic elements—and deprives the non-consumptive public the experience of observing such magnificent animals.
b. Moreover, there are other wildlife species which may not be “game” in the sense of hunting that benefit from true refuge habitat. The very name, “Game Refuge” is an oxymoron and compromises what refuges are all about. These areas should more correctly be called “CA State Wildlife Refuges” and retain their no-hunting designations.
c. Both Assembly and Senate analysts of SB 1166, 2008, questioned the validity of the game refuge “purpose.”
The public is forced to “trust” an agency to review and evaluate refuge closures without prejudice while it is being constantly pressued by hunters for “more hunt opportunities.” Evidence suggests that this egregious closure proposal was planned and formulated by
The fact is that wildlife is protected in a
It is disingenuous for
It is the hunter’s responsibility to know the laws; it should not be the state’s policy to relax regulations to accommodate scofflaws. There are hundreds of thousands of public lands available for hunting. If the hunters are not certain of the boundaries, it is their responsibility to not hunt in that unfamiliar or unknown area. (If someone does not know the speed limit is 35 mph, we don’t take away speed limits to accommodate the ones who choose to drive 65 mph.)
With regard to legal impacts, the
Additionally, the Pacific fisher, currently a candidate species for the US Endangered Species Act, is now absent from many of its previous habitats. One known problem contributing to the fisher’s demise is disease, and Parvo is one element. Parvo can be transmitted to fishers via dogs that hunters bring into the areas. Furthermore, fisher and other critical species can and do experience harassment or attack from loose dogs as well. Keeping the refuges closed to hunters will partially remediate these species’ issues which are at critical stages.
10—Motives for the unnecessary
FAQ’s & Additional Information Fallacies
It is stated that there is no risk of hunting having a detrimental effect on deer populations, especially because
Refuges are still safe havens for wildlife and for people who wish to hike, bike, boat, observe, photograph, etc., without the threat of hunting and all its impacts. Closing refuges results in a loss for both the animals and the people who use the lands in peace.
With hunters representing less than 1% of the state’s population, the vast majority of citizens would not approve the closing any State Game Refuge. If a true study and poll were taken, with a genuine public outreach effort, the vast majority would vote for increasing wildlife refuge acreage (no hunting regardless of how it’s named), rather than eliminating or depleting it.
State Game Refuge closures must not be allowed to proceed without full disclosure of all impacts for every refuge. The public knows very little about this poll or proposal, and at a recent county Fish and Game Commission meeting, not one commissioner knew about the proposal (except one hunter member who was concerned and questioning the proposal). Thus, the “public outreach” mandate is not being fulfilled.
We urge all to oppose the closure proposal and to submit comments to that effect immediately.
If there are any questions, please contact either Public Interest Coalition at email@example.com .
“Beginning at the fork of the
Puls Camp Roadand the Poison Lake-Harvey Valley Roadnear the quarter section corner between Secs.
33 and 34, T. 33 N., R. 8 E.; thence northerly following the
westerly side of said road by Dixie Springs and Puls Camp in Sec. 33,
T. 34 N., R. 8 E., to
in Sec. 19, T. 34 N., R. 8 E.; Shroder Lake
thence southwesterly about one mile to the junction of said Puls Camp
Road and the Little
Valley Roadin Sec. 24, T. 34 N., R. 7 E.;”
[iii] “Wildlife Finds Refuge in the Courts” by Tanya Mulford,
[iv] According to the author's office [of SB 1166] wildlife biologists at
The author indicates that the refuges were established for the purpose of providing a steady supply of game animals for hunting, however, it is unclear from the legislative history that that was the only or specific purpose of the refuges. [bold added] From: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1151-1200/sb_1166_cfa_20080623_111449_asm_comm.html
[v] “Game Refuges: A ‘Tragic Waste,” TRACKS, 1997. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/gamerefuges/docs/1997Tracks-GameRefuges.pdf