tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48554400341399884962024-03-14T01:36:11.235-07:00Animal GuardianOUR ENVIROhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09466361831730467436noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4855440034139988496.post-43771758951271322252010-11-15T00:06:00.002-08:002010-11-15T07:48:41.827-08:00<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><st1:place><st1:placename><st1:stockticker><b style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;color:black;" >DFG</span></b></st1:stockticker></st1:placename><b style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;color:black;" > </span></b><st1:placetype><b style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;color:black;" >State</span></b></st1:placetype></st1:place><b style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;color:black;" > Game Refuges Closures—“Review and Evaluate”<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><b style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;color:black;" >(“Closing” opens them up to hunting)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;" align="center"><b style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;color:black;" ><span style=""> </span>ALERT:<span style=""> </span></span></b><span style="color:black;">This is an urgent request to all who appreciate and value wildlife to submit comments to <u>oppose</u> any California Department of Fish and Game’s (</span><st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;">) proposal(s) to close CA State Game Refuges.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:black;">Information</span></u><span style="color:black;">: </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="color:black;">A public “opinion poll” is being conducted by CA’s </span><st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;"> re the elimination of CA State Game Refuges (</span><st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;">) where currently no hunting is allowed. Reportedly, based on public input (no scientific studies), </span><st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;"> will “review and evaluate<b style="">” </b>existing State Game Refuges and consider “closing” them (which would then allow hunting and carrying firearms in those designated areas). </span><st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;"> is accepting public comments up to </span><st1:date month="12" day="1" year="2010"><span style="color:black;">December 1, 2010</span></st1:date><span style="color:black;">, and must submit “.<b style="">..a description of the public education and outreach effort...and a summary of any information provided by the public that is relevant</b>....” to the legislature by </span><st1:date month="1" day="1" year="2011"><span style="color:black;">January, 1, 2011</span></st1:date><span style="color:black;">.<a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:12pt;color:black;" >[i]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="color:black;">For information from </span><st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;">’s perspective and/or to participate in the survey, visit </span><a href="http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/gamerefuges/">http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/gamerefuges/</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Comments may also be submitted via email:<span style=""> </span><a href="mailto:wildlifestrategy@dfg.ca.gov">wildlifestrategy@dfg.ca.gov</a> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><u><span style="color:black;">“Evaluation” of the Status of Existing State Game Refuges<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="" lang="EN">In 2008, </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> proposed a legislative change to eliminate the State Game Refuge status in some areas. </span><span style="color:black;">With the passage of SB 1166, the California Legislature directed </span><st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;"> to</span><span style=""> <span lang="EN">“<b style="">undertake appropriate education and outreach regarding the current location of existing game refuges...and the potential closure</b>....” of 19 of the state’s 21 refuges.<span style=""> </span>On or before January 1, 2011, </span></span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> is mandated to prepare and submit a summary of public input that is “relevant.”<span style=""> </span></span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> claims the proposed change in status would open these lands to public and private use, consistent with adjacent properties, and consistent with other refuges managed by the state and federal government.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><u><span style="" lang="EN">Lack of public outreach and/or education</span></u></b><span style="" lang="EN">:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="" lang="EN">1—Little-to-no public outreach or education has taken place, and there are no scientific studies for the public to review—</span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> has provided opinions only which indicate a bias toward closing.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="" lang="EN">2—The </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> website survey contains an irrelevant and inappropriate multiple choice option as to the public’s “perspective on hunting” (Item 4).<span style=""> </span>The information may create even more prejudice with regard to the submitter’s responses, and thus risk cursory dismissal.<span style=""> </span>Also, there may be hunting perspectives that are not reflected in the three limited choices.<span style=""> </span>Thus, </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">’s perspective summary may be erroneously interpreted to indicate a population that is more supportive of hunting than actually exists.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="" lang="EN">3—<span style=""> </span>The survey states that the legislature directed </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> to “review and evaluate” the existing </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> system.<span style=""> </span>If this were true, scientific studies should be provided.<span style=""> </span>As a matter of fact,<span style=""> </span>SB 1166 (Cox 2008) mandates (1) that law enforcement agencies may carry firearms in </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> and (2) that education and outreach be focused on the <u>location</u> of existing game refuges, agency contacts, and the potential closures.<span style=""> </span>Somehow the very minimal public opinion poll on the proposed closure locations is being misconstrued as a valid review and evaluation of those locations with no evidence to support any closure proposals.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="" lang="EN">4—</span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> claims to provide information via the website for the public to learn about each </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">.<span style=""> </span>However, each game refuge description would be appropriate for a title company for deed recording or for someone trained as a surveyor; they are not meaningful or understanable for the general public.<a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:12pt;" lang="EN" >[ii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style=""> </span>Where are the topographical and habitat descriptions or images? What is the acreage size of each refuge?<span style=""> </span>How much of each </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> is public and/or private lands?<span style=""> </span>None of this information is provided.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><u><span style="" lang="EN">Reasons to OPPOSE and submit comments by December 1, 2010 deadline</span></u></b><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN">:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="" lang="EN"><span style=""> </span>The </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> website and links appear to fully favor the closing of the </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> and use faulty logic to support this position. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="" lang="EN">1—</span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> claims that elimination of the </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> no firearms and no hunting status would make them “consistent with adjacent properties.”<span style=""> </span>There is no rationale or necessity for a “consistency-with-adjacent-properties” argument (all disparate zones are at some point inconsistent with adjacent properties).<span style=""> </span>Applying an adjacent properties “consistency” requirement to game refuges would mean there could never be a game refuge, unless the entire state were a </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> area.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="" lang="EN">2—</span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> claims that eliminating the </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> would make them consistent with other state and federal refuges.<span style=""> </span>The fact that </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> are not managed in the same manner as other refuges is irreleveant.<span style=""> </span>A better argument can be made that the other areas are not consistent with the word “refuge.”<span style=""> </span>Additionally, national forests and parks have always been managed differently from state forests and parks.<span style=""> </span></span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">’s argument that hunting creates and fufills an illusive “consistency” critera lacks merit.<span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="" lang="EN">3—Even if other agencies manage refuges differently, an important lawsuit should lead to changes that </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> would be prudent to incorporate.<span style=""> </span>On August 31, 2006, in The Fund for Animals vs U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina ruled that the FWS violated the law by opening up new hunting programs without analyzing impacts on refuge visitors, migratory birds, sensitive resources, and threatened and endangererd species.<span style=""> </span>Later, in 2007, the court allowed the lawsuit to expand to include more than 24 additional refuges. <a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:12pt;" lang="EN" >[iii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style=""> </span>In light of this case, </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> should not proceed with any proposals to close any </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">.<span style=""> </span>Instead, it should create more no-hunting refuges and expand existing </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> areas.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="" lang="EN">4—</span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> has created a perception that the reason(s) for establishing the refuge/no hunting or no-firearm designated areas 100 years ago was to provide a supply of game animals for hunting.<span style=""> </span>Thus, the claim is made that since </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> <u>may</u> no longer serve that purpose, they should be closed and hunting be allowed.<span style=""> </span>However, this original “purpose” claim is as speculative as the claims that the refuges no longer serve that purpose.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 63pt; text-indent: -27pt;"><span style="" lang="EN">a.<span style=""> </span>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.<span style=""> </span>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 63pt; text-indent: -27pt;"><span style="" lang="EN">b.<span style=""> </span>Moreover, there are other wildlife species which may not be “game” in the sense of hunting that benefit from true refuge habitat.<span style=""> </span></span>The very name, “Game Refuge” is an oxymoron and compromises what refuges are all about.<span style=""> </span>These areas should more correctly be called “CA State <b style=""><u>Wildlife Refuges</u></b>” and retain their no-hunting designations.<span style=""> </span><span style="" lang="EN"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 63pt; text-indent: -27pt;"><span style="" lang="EN">c.<span style=""> </span></span>Both Assembly and Senate analysts of SB 1166, 2008, questioned the validity of the game refuge “purpose.”<span style=""> </span><st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> states that the purpose in establishing the refuges 100 years ago was to protect deer from being overexploited during the period of early regulation and enforcement of game laws—the end of “market hunting” of game species and the beginning of active conservation.<span style=""> </span><st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> also states that <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> were established to “enhance deer populations” which would result in herd migrations out into areas where hunting is allowed.<span style=""> </span>However, SB 1166’s analyses question those stated purposes and suggest there were other <u>valid</u> reasons for establishing the Game Refuges.<a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:12pt;" >[iv]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="" lang="EN">5—Assuming </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">’s original purpose claim (refuges increase unmolested game that expands into adjacent hunting lands) is valid, </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> now claims that the refuges are not working, based on studies.<span style=""> </span>However, we don’t know the nature or validity of the studies, let alone whether they exist or not.<span style=""> </span>Neither studies nor any solid evidence to support such “not-working” claims, are presented or cited on </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">’s websites.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="" lang="EN">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.”<span style=""> </span>Evidence suggests that this egregious closure proposal was planned and formulated by </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> personnel for over 13 years (referring to </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">SGR</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> as “tragic waste” back in 1997<a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:12pt;" lang="EN" >[v]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>).<span style=""> </span>This portends a conflict of interest and/or an unacceptable bias for </span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> to potentially ignore valid science and/or public sentiment because simply closing the refuges and opening them to hunting will alleviate pressure from hunters.<span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="" lang="EN">6—</span><st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="" lang="EN"> claims that “</span>The scientific community's knowledge of wildlife ecology and behavior has increased since these refuges were created, and based on this information, <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> has developed significant regulatory processes to protect and enhance wildlife populations.”<span style=""> </span>First, this is irrelevant because there are no scientific studies on the ecology of the <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker>.<span style=""> </span>Second, <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> acknowledges that herds are declining; so just how well are those “significant regulatory processes to protect and enhance wildlife populations” working?<span style=""> </span>The referenced “regulatory processes” appear to be unreliable at best.<span style=""> </span>The only conclusion to be drawn is that the processes are NOT working and cannot be trusted. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The fact is that wildlife <b style=""><u>is</u></b> protected in a <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> at least from being killed, maimed, and/or wounded in that area.<span style=""> </span>That’s a given, regardless of the merits, or lack thereof, of the “significant regulatory processes to protect and enhance wildlife populations.” By its own admission, <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> has concerns regarding declines in black-tail deer populations.<span style=""> </span>In fact, <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> has initiated a study to try to find out why black-tailed deer populations have declined over the past 20 years.<span style=""> </span>According to its website,<a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:12pt;" >[vi]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <span style=""> </span><st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> “...began a three-year study of habitat changes, predation and land use patterns affecting black-tailed deer in <st1:place><st1:placename>Mendocino</st1:placename> <st1:placetype>County</st1:placetype></st1:place>.<span style=""> </span>The decline in the harvest of black-tailed deer over the past 20 years is well-documented.”<span style=""> </span>The website goes on to state that <u>statewide</u>, the harvest of black-tailed deer bucks has declined from 27,846 in 1989 to 14,895 in 2009, a drop of <b style="">46 percent</b>. <span style=""> </span>In the counties in the study area zone, harvest numbers have dropped from 3,013 to 1,297, a <b style="">57 percent</b> decline.<span style=""> </span>If anything, <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> should be pressing for more, not less, game refuges.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">7—<st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> claims the removal of the <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> designation from the 19 areas will benefit <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> law enforcement operations and constituents who participate in hunting.<span style=""> </span>First, it is our understanding that the California Game Wardens Association is opposed to the closings.<span style=""> </span>One can only imagine the increased work load with poachers and quota violations refuge closures will create.<span style=""> </span>Secondly, the work of a Game Warden should be much easier in a designated refuge:<span style=""> </span>Anyone in possession of a firearm is violating the law and should be cited; period. There may/may not be other violations, but that citation should be automatic.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">It is disingenuous for <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> to claim that closing the refuges will “change in the general purpose for which Fish and Game Wardens patrol the areas.”<span style=""> </span>Game Wardens patrol for violations.<span style=""> </span>There should be NO change in that purpose of the patrols.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">8—<st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> states that an expected result of the closings will (1) be an influx of hunters.<span style=""> </span>This alone should make anyone shudder, both from habitat impacts and public safety points of view; and (2) provide “recreational opportunities in new areas” for hunters.<span style=""> </span>If hunters move in, non-consumptive users will be deprived.<span style=""> </span>The safety and quietness of a refuge area will disappear.<span style=""> </span>Hunters are not being deprived any rights to access the <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker>.<span style=""> </span>As citizens, they can always enjoy the serenity within the <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker>, but they just cannot bring their lethal weapons.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">It is the hunter’s responsibility to know the laws; it should not be the state’s policy to relax regulations to accommodate scofflaws.<span style=""> </span>There are hundreds of thousands of public lands available for hunting.<span style=""> </span>If the hunters are not certain of the boundaries, it is their responsibility to <u>not</u> hunt in that unfamiliar or unknown area.<span style=""> </span>(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.)</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">With regard to legal impacts, the <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> statement that closure of <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> may ultimately result in issuance of fewer citations is a negative impact.<span style=""> </span>A loss of fines is a loss of revenues.<span style=""> </span>But more important, “lack of sufficient signage” is an attempt to excuse hunters from responsibility for knowing the boundaries.<span style=""> </span>Anyone can remove a sign and then claim they were confused.<span style=""> </span>If hunters can find hounds with <st1:stockticker>GPS</st1:stockticker> collars, surely hunters can avail themselves of <st1:stockticker>GPS</st1:stockticker> devices and know where they should and should not be.<span style=""> </span>If they cannot perform such a rudimentary task, because they are in unfamiliar territory or for any other excuse, then they deserve to be both cited, fined, and educated. Another option is to expand the <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> areas widely so that the confused hunter won’t be as inclined to cross into off-limits territory.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">9—<st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> also claims that “Elimination of the ‘State Game Refuge’ designation will have <u>no</u> significant impact on the wildlife and ecosystems of these lands.<span style=""> </span>However, no evidence, no proof, and no studies are presented to support this conclusion.<span style=""> </span>An equally speculative claim can be made that possibly the game refuges are indeed enhancing wildlife, habitat, ecosystems, and are serving the so-called purpose of increasing herds/populations.<span style=""> </span>It is more logical to conclude that elimination of the State Game Refuge designations <u>will</u> have significant negative impacts on wildlife and ecosystems and create even greater drops in black-tail deer populations. <span style=""> </span><st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> supports “off limits” with its Marine Life Protection Act efforts; the <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> issues are very similar.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Additionally, the Pacific fisher, currently a candidate species for the US Endangered Species Act, is now absent from many of its previous habitats.<span style=""> </span>One known problem contributing to the fisher’s demise is disease, and Parvo is one element.<span style=""> </span>Parvo can be transmitted to fishers via dogs that hunters bring into the areas.<span style=""> </span>Furthermore, fisher and other critical species can and do experience harassment or attack from loose dogs as well.<span style=""> </span>Keeping the refuges closed to hunters will partially remediate these species’ issues which are at critical stages.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">10—Motives for the unnecessary <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> closings may be found in the implementation of the SHARE program (Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement) which pays private landowners handsomely to allow hunting.<span style=""> </span>A thorough “review and evaluation” should include the potential financial windfall that will open for the private landowners (up to $30 per acre per season), as well as the political implications and pressures brought on by this program, funded in part by taxpayers.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">11—<st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> does not anticipate any economic impact to the public or to <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> with the <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> closures.<span style=""> </span>However, the Tehama County Fish and Game Commission stated otherwise, “...<span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;color:black;" >argued that allowing hunting in a state refuge, known as 1-G, would threaten the health of a large deer herd that supports an economically important hunting industry.”<a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;color:black;" >[vii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><u>FAQ’s & Additional Information Fallacies<o:p></o:p></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">It is stated that there is no risk of hunting having a detrimental effect on deer populations, especially because <st1:state><st1:place>California</st1:place></st1:state> is largely a “bucks only” hunting system. <span style=""> </span>Hunting DOES have a negative impact on deer in that the trophy hunter takes genetically the very best, leaving the smaller, possibly weaker to procreate, and thus weakening the herds and contributing to population declines.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> system is deemed to be a “complete” failure by <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> because herds have declined and unintended “refuges” have been created with the loss of “huntable lands.”<span style=""> </span>This non sequitur would be laughable if were it not such a misleading statement.<span style=""> </span>It may be true that loss of habitat has occurred due to land-use policies, contributing to herd declines, but it is more logical to conclude that man and management policies are no match for nature.<span style=""> </span><st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> judges the <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> as failures with unsubstantiated claims that large numbers of deer have not migrated out into the killing fields.<span style=""> </span>A more likely scenario is that deer are sustaining herd populations at optimal levels within the <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker>.<span style=""> </span>The “complete failure” accusation may be more appropriately directed at agency attempts to “manage” wildlife populations in order to accommodate hunter demands, with the result being ever-increasing declining deer populations.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Closing <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> in order to provide more “hunting opportunity” is unacceptable and unjustifiable.<span style=""> </span>Furthermore, there seems to be a contradiction in <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker>’s reasoning:<span style=""> </span>If the <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> have been such “complete failures,” why would hunters be inclined to flock to the <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker>?<span style=""> </span>If they are complete failures, hunters should not be “focusing on these areas.”<span style=""> </span>One can only conclude that because the <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> are such <u>success</u> stories, that’s where the trophies must be taking refuge, and that’s why <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> wants to close them as refuges.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">One <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> website has stated that even if some <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> are closed, they may not open to hunting because of local ordinances.<span style=""> </span>However, that argument will be moot if a bill similar to AB 979 is brought back (highly likely since it passed both houses but was vetoed by the Governor).<span style=""> </span>This legislation allows the <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> to “wholly occupy” the field of hunting and fishing.<span style=""> </span>Local ordinances and regulations cannot supersede <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> regulations if another version of AB 979 is introduced and passed.<span style=""> </span>Thus, even though a community may not want hunting on lands located within its jurisdiction, the city or county regulations will not hold if <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> decides the area can be hunted.<span style=""> </span>Any closed <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> will be exposed and vulnerable to hunting, regardless of local ordinances, if/when AB 979 or its clone is re-introduced.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><u>In Closing<o:p></o:p></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">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.<span style=""> </span>Closing refuges results in a loss for both the animals and the people who use the lands in peace.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">With hunters representing less than 1% of the state’s population, the vast majority of citizens would <u>not</u> approve the closing any State Game Refuge.<span style=""> </span>If a true study and poll were taken, with a genuine public outreach effort, the vast majority would vote for <u>increasing</u> wildlife refuge acreage (no hunting regardless of how it’s named), rather than eliminating or depleting it.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">State Game Refuge closures must not be allowed to proceed without full disclosure of all impacts for every refuge.<span style=""> </span>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).<span style=""> </span>Thus, the “public outreach” mandate is not being fulfilled.<span style=""> </span><st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> also should study the merits of <u>increasing</u> <st1:stockticker>SGR</st1:stockticker> designations throughout the state and especially in the Mendocino area where black-tail herd declines appear to be higher than the rest of the state and where few-to-no refuges exist.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">We urge all to oppose the closure proposal and to submit comments to that effect immediately.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">If there are any questions, please contact either Public Interest Coalition at <a href="mailto:public-interest@live.com">public-interest@live.com</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><b style=""><u>Endnotes</u></b>:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: pre;font-family:monospace;font-size:13px;" ><a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:10pt;" >[i]</span></span></span></span></a> SB 1166, Cox, 2008, was created to address the issue that prohibited law enforcement agencies to enter game refuges in performance of their duties because firearms/weapons were not allowed.<span style=""> </span>The first provision in SB 1166 permits law enforcement officers to enter a game refuge in the performance of their duties.<span style=""> </span>A second provision requires that the <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> undertake “...education and outreach efforts, including efforts regarding the potential closure of all state game refuges other than 2 specified refuges. The department would be required to provide an opportunity for public comment. The bill would require the department, on or before <st1:date year="2011" day="1" month="1">January 1, 2011</st1:date>, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report on those efforts and a summary of any information provided by the public that is relevant to the potential closure of those state game refuges. For details on that legislation, go to:<span style=""> </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;color:black;" ><a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1151-1200/sb_1166_bill_20080927_chaptered.html">http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1151-1200/sb_1166_bill_20080927_chaptered.html</a></span></span></p><div style=""><div style="" id="edn1"> <p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p><a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:10pt;" >[ii]</span></span></span></span></a> For example, how does this excerpt help the public evaluate and review a refuge location:</p></div><div style="" id="edn2"> <pre><span style="font-size:9pt;">“Beginning at the fork of the </span><st1:street><st1:address><span style="font-size:9pt;">Puls Camp Road</span></st1:address></st1:street><span style="font-size:9pt;"> and the Poison<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><st1:street><st1:address><span style="font-size:9pt;">Lake-Harvey Valley Road</span></st1:address></st1:street><span style="font-size:9pt;"> near the quarter section corner between Secs.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style="font-size:9pt;">33 and 34, T. 33 N., R. 8 E.; thence northerly following the<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style="font-size:9pt;">westerly side of said road by Dixie Springs and Puls Camp in Sec. 33,<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style="font-size:9pt;">T. 34 N., R. 8 E., to </span><st1:place><st1:placename><span style="font-size:9pt;">Shroder</span></st1:placename><span style="font-size:9pt;"> </span><st1:placetype><span style="font-size:9pt;">Lake</span></st1:placetype></st1:place><span style="font-size:9pt;"> in Sec. 19, T. 34 N., R. 8 E.;<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style="font-size:9pt;">thence southwesterly about one mile to the junction of said Puls Camp<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style="font-size:9pt;">Road and the Little </span><st1:street><st1:address><span style="font-size:9pt;">Valley Road</span></st1:address></st1:street><span style="font-size:9pt;"> in Sec. 24, T. 34 N., R. 7 E.;”<o:p></o:p></span></pre> <p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div style="" id="edn3"> <p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:10pt;" >[iii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> “Wildlife Finds Refuge in the Courts” by Tanya Mulford, <st1:date year="2006" day="8" month="9">September 8, 2006</st1:date>.<span style=""> </span><a href="http://www.hsus.org/wildlife_abuse/news/refuge_decision_9_06.html">http://www.hsus.org/wildlife_abuse/news/refuge_decision_9_06.html</a> and<span style=""> </span><a href="http://www.hsus.org/in_the_courts/docket/refuge_hunting.html">http://www.hsus.org/in_the_courts/docket/refuge_hunting.html</a><span style=""> </span>and<span style=""> </span><a href="http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/new_sport_hunting_programs_on.html">http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/new_sport_hunting_programs_on.html</a><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: pre;font-family:monospace;font-size:13px;" ><a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:10pt;" >[iv]</span></span></span></span></a> <span style="color:black;">According to the author's office [of SB 1166] wildlife biologists at </span><st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;">DFG</span></st1:stockticker><span style="color:black;"> contend that the game refuge system no longer serves a purpose and should be abolished. <b style="">However, there are some who believe that the refuges have value....<span style=""> </span></b></span></span></p></div><div style="" id="edn4"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="color:black;">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. </span></b><span style="color:black;">[bold added] From: </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;" ><a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1151-1200/sb_1166_cfa_20080623_111449_asm_comm.html">http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1151-1200/sb_1166_cfa_20080623_111449_asm_comm.html</a> </span> </p> <pre><span style="color:black;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: normal;font-family:Georgia,serif;font-size:16px;" ><a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:10pt;" >[v]</span></span></span></span></a> “Game Refuges:<span style=""> </span>A ‘Tragic Waste,” TRACKS, 1997.<span style=""> </span><a href="http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/gamerefuges/docs/1997Tracks-GameRefuges.pdf">http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/gamerefuges/docs/1997Tracks-GameRefuges.pdf</a></span></pre></div><div style="" id="edn5"> <p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p><a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:10pt;" >[vi]</span></span></span></span></a> (<a href="http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/news10/2010080303-Deer-Study.html">http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/news10/2010080303-Deer-Study.html</a> )</p></div><div style="" id="edn6"> <p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p><a style="" href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MJasper/My%20Documents/ENVIRO%20ISSUES+Groups+Areas/FISH+GAME-Co+CA+DFG/CA%20DFG%20Issues+Website%20References/Refuge%20Closures-Allowing%20Hunting/Notices%20Sent-Public%20Corres/Info%20to%20OPPOSE%20CA%20Refuges-Nov%202010.doc#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:12pt;" >[vii]</span></span></span></span></a> “<span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;" >State Quietly Studying Proposal to End Hunting Ban in Game Refuges,” Oakland Tribune, San Jose Mercury, and others, </span><st1:date year="2010" day="7" month="11"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;" >November 7, 2010</span></st1:date><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;" >:<span style=""> </span><span style="color:black;"><a href="http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_16502130">http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_16502130</a></span></span></p></div><div style="" id="edn7"> <p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div></div>OUR ENVIROhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09466361831730467436noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4855440034139988496.post-39070679385786661492010-11-14T23:59:00.000-08:002010-11-15T00:05:45.920-08:00Take Action: Stop the Closing of CA Game Refuges<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 19px;"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">STOP the PROPOSAL to CLOSE CA STATE GAME REFUGES!<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p><span class="Apple-style-span"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; "><b> </b> Tell the <st1:state><st1:place>California</st1:place></st1:state> Dept of Fish and Game (<st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker>) to either:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; "> 1—Leave all the State Game Refuges <u>open</u> as they are (no hunting allowed); or</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; "> 2—Conduct proper (third party, unbiased) <u>research</u> to analyze the State Game Refuges and share the results of those studies with the public.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; "><u>Background:<o:p></o:p></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; "> Since 1869, when <st1:place><st1:placetype>Lake</st1:placetype> <st1:placename>Merritt</st1:placename></st1:place> (<st1:city><st1:place>Oakland</st1:place></st1:city>) was declared the first state game refuge (believed to be the first in the country), the total number is up to 21. The current <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> proposal is to close 19 of the 21 state refuges and open them to hunting. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; "><u>Issues</u>:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; "> Part of the <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker>’s stated rationale for the “closing” proposal is that the game refuges “no longer serve their purpose.” However, there is debate as to (1) what the actual purpose was for which they were established 100 years ago; and (2) whether refuges do indeed provide and protect both wildlife and habitat. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; "> CA State Game Refuges are one of the few designated areas where no hunting is allowed. In fact, it is illegal to carry firearms, pellet guns or archery weapons in State Game Refuge areas. In 2008, a bill was passed (SB 1166) to allow law enforcement personnel to enter refuge areas with their firearms. However, another provision of the bill mandated that <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> conduct public outreach and education to consider closing the refuges with the unsubstantiated claim that they no longer served their “purpose.” Even the bill’s analysts (Assembly and Senate) questioned the validity of that claim. Currently, with no evidence or research to support the proposal, <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> states that the refuges are “complete failures” and should be closed—thus opening them up to hunting.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; "> With millions of acres available for hunting in <st1:state><st1:place>California</st1:place></st1:state>, it makes no sense to close the few official refuges—destroying them <u>forever</u> as true “refuges” for wildlife. Our wildlife regulatory agencies were established to “preserve” our natural resources. Their primary purpose is <u>not</u> to enhance hunting opportunities, open up new public areas for hunting, sell more hunting tags, or deplete our natural resources, but a valid argument can be made that that is what the agencies’ roles seem to have morphed into.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; "> It is a known fact that non-consumptive uses of our natural resources (hikers, wildlife watchers, birders, boaters, photographers, campers, etc.) represent a much larger group than hunters. Yet folks involved in hunting activities—less than 1% of our state’s population—are now seemingly setting the standards and goals as to how our wildlife, that belongs to all of us, will be “managed” (aka: depleted, harvested, killed, dispatched, etc.). </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; "><u>Action</u>:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; "> The closing of the State Game Refuges must not be allowed to proceed, especially without any supporting scientific research. Currently, depending upon which statements one reads, <st1:stockticker>DFG</st1:stockticker> is conducting either a public “poll” or an “evaluation and review” of the proposal to close. The deadline is <st1:date year="2010" day="1" month="12"><u>December 1, 2010</u></st1:date> to submit comments (via email: <a href="mailto:wildlifestrategy@dfg.ca.gov" title="Email your Game Refuge comments">wildlifestrategy@dfg.ca.gov</a> <u>and</u>/or take the public survey at <a href="http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/gamerefuges">http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/gamerefuges</a> . (The survey on this website allows only one submission per computer.)</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></span><p></p>OUR ENVIROhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09466361831730467436noreply@blogger.com0