Threat to Bear Hunting

Knew that was coming. First lions, then bobcats, now bears, then it will be coyotes.
 
It doesn’t surprise me one bit especially the author of the bill, San Fransico stereotypical costal elitist, Ill contact my representatives but probably won’t make any difference...another case of ballot box biology🤬🤬
 
Bigjav said:
It doesn’t surprise me one bit especially the author of the bill, San Fransico stereotypical costal elitist, Ill contact my representatives but probably won’t make any difference...another case of ballot box biology🤬🤬
Click to expand...
I wrote both senators this morning, it will probably fall on deaf ears but it's better than staying quiet.
 
California has got to get it's act together. Of all the problems that state has to deal with, they choose to create a new "problem" (bear hunting) and put their energy toward that. These politicians are clueless, no wonder people are leaving the state in droves.
 
I just sent this. Also there is a petition going around to oppose this ban. Don't just gripe here. Say something. I don't care if you live in California or not, this is an issue for all hunters (even if you don't hunt bear)

Senator Wiener,

Let me start by saying that I ate braised black-bear meatballs today. To regard bear hunting as a trophy sport is simply incorrect. The vast majority of hunters hunt for meat, including those like myself who hunt bear. In fact, because a black bear also provides a useful hide, the argument could be made that harvested bears are more fully utilized than deer. Bear hunters are a minority, even among hunters. This is important because when you try to ban bear hunting you are trying to ban a way of life based on your lack of understanding of it. Think about your own beliefs for a second and imagine if that belief could be made illegal because you happened to hold a minority viewpoint? Does that sound like something a Democrat should be doing? Or does that sound like the sort of thing a Democrat should fight against?


Beyond simply misunderstanding the nature of bear-hunting, your logic for banning the bear hunt is flawed on several points.

You said in the announcement of this measure “Over the past few years, black bears have faced unprecedented habitat loss due to climate change and wildfires, and continued sport hunting in California makes survival an even tougher climb“

According to the wildlife division of the California Government. "California's black bear population has increased over the past 25 years. In 1982, the statewide bear population was estimated to be between 10,000 and 15,000. Presently, the statewide black bear population is conservatively estimated to be between 30,000 and 40,000." Hunters can harvest up to 1700 of those animals. This amounts to 4.3% of the overall population. The actual amount of harvested bears is even less. As of today that number stands at 919 (2% of the population). This number is set by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to maintain healthy populations of animals (not just bears) and prevent wildlife conflicts. All wildlife in America is owned by the people and held in trust by the states. We manage those populations in order to sustain them. It’s a system of conservation that works better than any place on the planet, hunters created it, fund it, and keep the animals you claim to be protecting alive and well for future generations. Don’t believe that here is backup:

Secton 1801 of the Fish and Game Code establishes state policy regarding wildlife resources. The ultimate goal of this policy is to maintain sufficient wildlife populations (including black bear) to accomplish the following goals:

  • to provide for the beneficial use and enjoyment of wildlife by all citizens of the state;
  • to perpetuate all species for their intrinsic and ecological values;
  • to provide for aesthetic, educational, and nonappropriative uses:
  • to maintain diversified recreational uses of wildlife including sport hunting;
  • to provide for economic contributions to the citizens of the state through the recognition that wildlife is a renewable resource, and;
  • to alleviate economic losses or public health and safety problems caused by wildlife.
Try to do that without hunter dollars, and those dollars matter. If you are a resident of California, it costs $100.44 to hunt a black bear (not to harvest it, but to just go out there and try). A non-resident like me has to pay $493.99. That puts the revenue generated from bear hunting somewhere between $3,052,773 and $15,014,332 in tags and licenses alone. That works out to at least $3,321.84 per bear harvested last year paid by 30,394 tag holders. Your proposal will not only make those funds vanish, but put a burden on the state as explained below.

I agree that climate change poses a serious risk to all animals (us included). But defunding habitat conservation efforts is not a good way to save bears or any other animal. Furthermore, misbalancing a controlled system via some sort of ballot-box-biology is not going to help overall. We need as many conservation tools as we can get right now. If that is not enough, rural areas utilize legal hunting to control animal populations to eliminate conflict while generating conservation revenue for the state and meat for the freezer. If you take that tool away then the conflicts will still occur, but now will have to be dealt with by the state. Doing this turns a revenue stream into a money pit.

You said “It’s time we stop this inhumane practice once and for all.” I detest this statement with every fiber of my being. Eating meat means something dies, eating vegetables means that something either dies or is displaced. Living has a cost that is extracted from the world around us. As a hunter I am trying to have a clear picture of that cost. If the idea of hunting is distasteful to you, I challenge you to take a clear look at every single item on your plate tonight. Ask yourself where it came from and what was the real cost in terms of suffering inflicted on the world around you. No hunter strives to inflict pain, we are not sadists. We simply want to eat, and we kill to take responsibility for that cost. How dare you judge us for that?

In short, retract your support for this measure. It is bad for the taxpayer, it is bad for conservation, and it is simply bad practice to pick on minorities in a representative democracy. If that is not good enough, there are 235,000 hunters in California who do not like seeing hunting messed with. This is not a good way to keep their votes.
 
This bill was introduced by a State Senator (Wiener). So start by contacting your zone's state senator. I'm in District 2 (all of north-coast) so my rep is Senator Mike McGuire. His number is (916) 651-4002.
After the Senate votes on it, if it passes, then we have to contact the State House Representative. But for now start with your Senator.
Let's squash this thing.
Preston
 
PrestonTaylor said:
This bill was introduced by a State Senator (Wiener). So start by contacting your zone's state senator. I'm in District 2 (all of north-coast) so my rep is Senator Mike McGuire. His number is (916) 651-4002.
After the Senate votes on it, if it passes, then we have to contact the State House Representative. But for now start with your Senator.
Let's squash this thing.
Preston
Click to expand...
Great first post! Welcome to the forum.
 
I think we need to be more clear about this: this is not about bears, this is about hunting. California has slowly been taking hunting privileges away for many years, there are areas of CA where you cannot legally hunt coyotes. I’m all for the lead free thing in California, but I also know that California legislature has been adding more regulation to the state’s game and fish laws for years with the goal of abolishing hunting as a whole.

I grew up east of Los Angeles, my first hunt was black bear about 30 minutes above my house in Angeles national forest. Just because some slimy politician is getting pumped full of money by the humane society of the US, doesn’t give him (oops, assumed their gender.... it*) the right to take away a large piece of American history, and one of the contributing factors California is even relevant.

I would hate nothing more than to see the privilege of hunting be taken away in any state, I am shaking my head at this nutbar.

rant over, I’m sorry
 
RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter said:
I just sent this. Also there is a petition going around to oppose this ban. Don't just gripe here. Say something. I don't care if you live in California or not, this is an issue for all hunters (even if you don't hunt bear)

Senator Wiener,

Let me start by saying that I ate braised black-bear meatballs today. To regard bear hunting as a trophy sport is simply incorrect. The vast majority of hunters hunt for meat, including those like myself who hunt bear. In fact, because a black bear also provides a useful hide, the argument could be made that harvested bears are more fully utilized than deer. Bear hunters are a minority, even among hunters. This is important because when you try to ban bear hunting you are trying to ban a way of life based on your lack of understanding of it. Think about your own beliefs for a second and imagine if that belief could be made illegal because you happened to hold a minority viewpoint? Does that sound like something a Democrat should be doing? Or does that sound like the sort of thing a Democrat should fight against?


Beyond simply misunderstanding the nature of bear-hunting, your logic for banning the bear hunt is flawed on several points.

You said in the announcement of this measure “Over the past few years, black bears have faced unprecedented habitat loss due to climate change and wildfires, and continued sport hunting in California makes survival an even tougher climb“

According to the wildlife division of the California Government. "California's black bear population has increased over the past 25 years. In 1982, the statewide bear population was estimated to be between 10,000 and 15,000. Presently, the statewide black bear population is conservatively estimated to be between 30,000 and 40,000." Hunters can harvest up to 1700 of those animals. This amounts to 4.3% of the overall population. The actual amount of harvested bears is even less. As of today that number stands at 919 (2% of the population). This number is set by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to maintain healthy populations of animals (not just bears) and prevent wildlife conflicts. All wildlife in America is owned by the people and held in trust by the states. We manage those populations in order to sustain them. It’s a system of conservation that works better than any place on the planet, hunters created it, fund it, and keep the animals you claim to be protecting alive and well for future generations. Don’t believe that here is backup:

Secton 1801 of the Fish and Game Code establishes state policy regarding wildlife resources. The ultimate goal of this policy is to maintain sufficient wildlife populations (including black bear) to accomplish the following goals:

  • to provide for the beneficial use and enjoyment of wildlife by all citizens of the state;
  • to perpetuate all species for their intrinsic and ecological values;
  • to provide for aesthetic, educational, and nonappropriative uses:
  • to maintain diversified recreational uses of wildlife including sport hunting;
  • to provide for economic contributions to the citizens of the state through the recognition that wildlife is a renewable resource, and;
  • to alleviate economic losses or public health and safety problems caused by wildlife.
Try to do that without hunter dollars, and those dollars matter. If you are a resident of California, it costs $100.44 to hunt a black bear (not to harvest it, but to just go out there and try). A non-resident like me has to pay $493.99. That puts the revenue generated from bear hunting somewhere between $3,052,773 and $15,014,332 in tags and licenses alone. That works out to at least $3,321.84 per bear harvested last year paid by 30,394 tag holders. Your proposal will not only make those funds vanish, but put a burden on the state as explained below.

I agree that climate change poses a serious risk to all animals (us included). But defunding habitat conservation efforts is not a good way to save bears or any other animal. Furthermore, misbalancing a controlled system via some sort of ballot-box-biology is not going to help overall. We need as many conservation tools as we can get right now. If that is not enough, rural areas utilize legal hunting to control animal populations to eliminate conflict while generating conservation revenue for the state and meat for the freezer. If you take that tool away then the conflicts will still occur, but now will have to be dealt with by the state. Doing this turns a revenue stream into a money pit.

You said “It’s time we stop this inhumane practice once and for all.” I detest this statement with every fiber of my being. Eating meat means something dies, eating vegetables means that something either dies or is displaced. Living has a cost that is extracted from the world around us. As a hunter I am trying to have a clear picture of that cost. If the idea of hunting is distasteful to you, I challenge you to take a clear look at every single item on your plate tonight. Ask yourself where it came from and what was the real cost in terms of suffering inflicted on the world around you. No hunter strives to inflict pain, we are not sadists. We simply want to eat, and we kill to take responsibility for that cost. How dare you judge us for that?

In short, retract your support for this measure. It is bad for the taxpayer, it is bad for conservation, and it is simply bad practice to pick on minorities in a representative democracy. If that is not good enough, there are 235,000 hunters in California who do not like seeing hunting messed with. This is not a good way to keep their votes.
Click to expand...
Extremely well stated. We need to formulate arguments that allow hunting to stand on its own merits. The population control arguments, while true, can be used against hunting like they have discussed in New Zealand and New York (exterminate the invasive species or make them sterile, no hunting necessary).

I'm not a Californian so no real dog in this fight. But those bemoaning the Democrat control of your state remind me of public land advocates bemoaning Republican states. You can do little to stop people from voting a party into power, so you're better off convincing those in power to have better policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Irrelevant
More bear hunting in California
Replies
0
Views
321
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Sytes
Montana Statewide Grizzly Bear Management Plan
Replies
3
Views
325
Straight Arrow
Straight Arrow
ccc23454
Bad kitty
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
Moserkr
Moserkr
P
The wolf saga continues.
Replies
4
Views
364
shb
S
G
Dsnow
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
duckhunt
duckhunt

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,675
Messages
2,029,376
Members
36,279
Latest member
TURKEY NUT

Share this page

Back
Top