PDA

View Full Version : BOYCOTT DFG!!!!


11Z50
07-27-2008, 4:25 PM
As you probably know, "I am mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore."

With the lead ammo ban further restricting our gun rights, I have decided that I will no longer pay DFG to harass me. No hunting or fishing license, deer tags, upland stamp, nada. If I want to hunt or fish, I'll do it elsewhere.

If a large number of us refuse to pay DFG for the privilige of hunting, and encourage others to do the same, it will send a clear message to the bottom-feeders that run the operation. A large portion of DFG's budget comes from our license fees, tags and stamps. If we all stop giving them our hard-earned money it should discourage further restrictions of our freedom.

Equalizer2
07-27-2008, 4:38 PM
I stopped hunting when they went to steel shot for Ducks, not one dime since then.:mad::mad:

USN CHIEF
07-27-2008, 4:38 PM
What is DFG? Seriously.

Splinter
07-27-2008, 4:41 PM
Department of fish and game- California

Guntech
07-27-2008, 4:48 PM
Yeah I'll probably go out of state Fish and Game here is getting too Liberal...*** holes..they don't seem to be complaining when were handing them our hard earned money to help preserve the environment.

jmlivingston
07-27-2008, 4:58 PM
There's no clear choice in this debate, and yes it's a bit of extortion! By no longer buying hunting and fishing licenses you're giving them exactly what they want. It's not like you can vote with your dollar and spend it elsewhere. Sure you can go out of state to hunt, but those opportunities are finite and it will only become more and more competitive to acquire those limited non-resident tags in western big-game states such as NV, UT, WY, MT, AZ, CO, etc.

bwiese
07-27-2008, 5:03 PM
I agree with the sentiments.

However, sad truth is DFG will not fold its tent/fire staff even if zero hunting/fishing licenses were issued. Whatever folks that knew anything about hunting/fishing would disappear and it'd still be in charge of "wildlife management" with a buncha Berkeley girls in sandals giving even more orders.

jamesob
07-27-2008, 5:05 PM
i posted a long time ago that i would no longer hunt in california. i will however go up in the hills and blast the crap out of targets in the condor range.

Shane916
07-27-2008, 5:10 PM
i posted a long time ago that i would no longer hunt in california. i will however go up in the hills and blast the crap out of targets in the condor range.

We could solve the real problem and take out all the condors. With no condors there would be no ammo restrictions :D

jmlivingston
07-27-2008, 5:10 PM
However, sad truth is DFG will not fold its tent/fire staff even if zero hunting/fishing licenses were issued. Whatever folks that knew anything about hunting/fishing would disappear and it'd still be in charge of "wildlife management" with a buncha Berkeley girls in sandals giving even more orders.

Yup! That's a big part of why it's a "no-win" situation by trying to boycott the DFG. There will always be that wildlife management component, where biologists go out into the field and count the feet of deer and try to divide by four to get an accurate size of the herds. As well, the Warden's will still exist in attempts to deter and catch poachers.

So for now we either play by their damned ludicrous rules and work for change or we surrender and give up hunting and fishing. Me? I'm hoping that 3 times a charm and I'll finally get my deer this year! In the meantime, I'm teaching my son how to fish for trout up in the mountain streams and working on passing the traditions down another generation.

John

nobs11
07-27-2008, 5:22 PM
Boycotting hunting or giving up shooting is not going to help anyone. That is what they want. Government departments once set up are never shut down. They will find some other way to get their revenue.

robbor
07-27-2008, 5:29 PM
The facts are condors cannot maintain or increase their population here on their own anyways. This ban was created by the state by continuing to raise and release a species that cannot sustain itself. They are to weak and subject to pressure as a species. I think we need to ban all cars and people in the condor area, make everyone in this area walk away from their homes so the condor can live:). I think this law will cause enough resentment that condors will never be safe again.

11Z50
07-27-2008, 6:01 PM
While I agree we will not shut down DFG, it certainly would get their attention if fees dropped dramatically. At any rate I will not hand any more of my money to these people.

My kids are grown, and I taught them all gun safety and hunting/fishing and how to survive in the woods. I have grandkids, but I think I'll take them out of state when the time comes.

My point here is this: While complaints, letters to elected officials, and attempts to communicate our dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs will almost certainly be ignored, we do still have the right to not give any more of our money to DFG. If enough of us do so, they will notice.

As for "them" winning, they have already won. Hunting in this state is a lost cause that will soon be regulated so much it won't be worth doing.

Rather than simply requiring another type of ammo, DFG has installed instant PC to search anybody that they believe might be hunting. This is not limited to hunters in the field, but also arbitrary stops in vehicles enroute to or from hunting areas. We will see some cases filed with the start of deer season in my area.

On the other hand, if enough of us take a renewed interest in marksmanship and target shooting we still get to enjoy the outdoors, shoot our guns, and thumb our noses at the DFG. Hopefully, one of theirs will harass me about my lead ammo, I will get it on video, and my lawyer and I will make enough to go on an extended out of state hunt.;)

M. Sage
07-27-2008, 6:21 PM
We need to push for a state law forcing DFG to run entirely off money from tags. In fact, a change to the state's Constitution would be in order on this one.

IIRC, the Department of Natural Resources in Michigan (same as the DFG) is run entirely off money from licensing.

Guntech
07-27-2008, 6:29 PM
We could solve the real problem and take out all the condors. With no condors there would be no ammo restrictions :D

You go ahead and do that! I'll come visit you in jail!

nobs11
07-27-2008, 6:31 PM
As for "them" winning, they have already won. Hunting in this state is a lost cause that will soon be regulated so much it won't be worth doing.

On the other hand, if enough of us take a renewed interest in marksmanship and target shooting we still get to enjoy the outdoors, shoot our guns, and thumb our noses at the DFG. Hopefully, one of theirs will harass me about my lead ammo, I will get it on video, and my lawyer and I will make enough to go on an extended out of state hunt.


That's what everyone said about guns when the AW ban passed. Now things are getting better. I understand what you are saying but we can't give up. Giving up hunting means that we have given up.

I agree about the part about marksmanship and target shooting.

Shane916
07-27-2008, 6:41 PM
You go ahead and do that! I'll come visit you in jail!

Promise?? :tt1:

chris
07-27-2008, 7:05 PM
thanks sam parades for this F******* up law that we now have to deal with. dumba**.

11Z50
07-27-2008, 7:24 PM
That's what everyone said about guns when the AW ban passed. Now things are getting better. I understand what you are saying but we can't give up. Giving up hunting means that we have given up.

I agree about the part about marksmanship and target shooting.

I'm not giving up on hunting. I'm just paying my money to a more hospitable vendor. The deer hunting around here was never that great; I've hunted in Oregon, Utah, Washington and Colorado for years. The only hunting I've done in the PRK for several seasons has been upland birds and blasting ground squirrels.

I've been doing some research, and it appears that an out of state prairie dog hunt is not only more fun, but a cheap vacation. I might even be able to blend in an upland hunt. Even with out of state license, the costs are very close. DFG can kiss my arse. I'm not going to go thru all this heartburn and expense to kill a few birds and blow up some varmints.

Hunting is a hobby, not a necessity. It costs money, and should be fun. If I pay this lunatic state money to hunt, I should not have to worry about all this feel-good tree-hug BS. I'll take my business elsewhere.

sorensen440
07-27-2008, 8:59 PM
um sorry no
that would be like getting rid of our guns to teach a lesson to doj bof

cbn620
07-27-2008, 9:35 PM
Meh, paint your bullets silver and keep on truckin'.

11Z50
07-27-2008, 9:41 PM
um sorry no
that would be like getting rid of our guns to teach a lesson to doj bof

Um no.....doj doesn't make money off people buying guns. DFG does make money off hunters and fishers.....and I can spend my money elsewhere. Hypothetically, if nobody bought a hunting license, deer tags, upland stamps, pig tags, etc, for one year I think there might be an epiphany. The other adjoining states will revel in the increased tariff.

Meplat
07-27-2008, 10:12 PM
DFG didn't want this law it doesn't like this law, it wishes this law would go away. It's causing them no end of grief. The Legislature is responsible for this law and as long as we keep electing liberals we will get more of the same.

I have a lot of issues with DFG but this ain't one of them. Maybe they didn't fight against it hard enough but they did not promote it. Boycotting DFG will solve nothing. We will just lose more of our influence over them.

11Z50
07-27-2008, 11:21 PM
Funny.....the DFG agents I've talked to revel in the notion that they can now stop any vehicle in an "hunting area" and check for lead ammo. I hope you're not one of the new criminal breed. Do you understand that if you resided in D7 deer zone, and have a rifle and lead ammo in your car, even if enroute to a range, you are subject to arrest and a 5K fine? Over a prehistoric bird that went away 10,000 years ago? I guess you trust them more than I.

In the meanwhile, not a penny of my money goes to these asshats.

Mudhen00
07-28-2008, 11:03 AM
I am a huge advocate of this site, our cause, and our members... but I have to disagree and voice my opinion on this issue.

Here is what will happen when we all stop buying licenses.

CUT

1) Game Bird Heritage Program: Education and special hunts for children, women and families. --Without new hunters and more people exposed to hunting there will be further desire to restrict and reduce opportunities to us all. --No more conservation ethics or young people (future voters) exposed to CA's outdoors and natural resources.

2) Fishing in the City Program: Education and hands-on fishing experience for low income and special needs children. --This program actually gets kids off the streets and exposed to outdoor related activities instead of making guns look bad by shooting each other.

3) Land Conservation and Maintenance: Funding for acquisitions, maintenance, habitat restoration and biological monitoring will slow to a trickle or stop entirely. No more new Wildlife Areas, Ecological Reserves, Fishing Accesses, hatcheries or game farms. No more invasive species removal or habitat restoration. No budget for signs, maps, fencing, water guzzlers, gates, roads, trails, restrooms, trash service, graffiti and vandalism removal, or site security.

4) No Part-time Employees: This means loosing the scientific aid, the workforce of the Department responsible for most of the on-the-ground efforts. Maintenance like fence repair/installation, wildlife culls, biological surveys, public education and outreach, and "other duties as assigned." Without these folks you would notice the difference on State Lands immediately.

5) No Special Project funding: Elk and Bighorn Sheep captures and introductions.. gone. Upland game captures and introductions ... gone. Hatcheries and stream restoration projects... gone.

6) Fuel and Energy: No gas to operate Wildlife Areas or electricity to pump water for waterfowl season will result in reduced hunting opportunities and lower waterfowl recruitment (lower bag limits).

7) Interpretive Centers: No Staffing or budget allowance to operate the only means of DFG educating children and young adults about the importance of conservation and resource management through hands-on learning experiences. Remember, the young people of today are the voters of tomorrow.

All of this will happen. Funny thing is, if itís the enforcement side of DFG (Wardens) you are trying to hurt with the boycott, well, they are funded through the General Fund. They will continue to operate just like CHP operates whether or not you register your car.

The DFG budget has been hacked more than 60% in the last decade. They have lost countless highly trained professionals (mostly outdoorsmen) to the private sector. They struggle to buy ball point pens and pay for paper to put in printers. They are probably the most dedicated and hardest working of CA State employees and get little or no respect for the jobs they do. They still show up to work everyday ready to fight for and protect wildlife, fisheries, and the publicís right to pursue and enjoy all of CA's natural resources.

This lead-ban isn't about taking gun rights away, it's about the right for a species of this planet a small shot at survival. Imagine the damage to water quality and aquatic life if we were all were still throwing lead shot into CA's estuaries and rivers for the last 20 years.

The quickest way to get hunting and outdoor recreation banned is for the user group to show ignorance, indifference, and selfishness towards the Stateís resources. Bill W. has a point when he referenced sandal wearing Berkeley hippies becoming the new face of a historically Rod-n-Gun oriented Department. DFG is changing because of the lower importance placed on wildlife and outdoor recreation by voters and residents. The truth is, with less hunting and fishing being done by CA residents and a perpetuating negative stereotype of hunters in this State, along with NO environmental science being taught in schools, there will be more laws passed and more restrictions placed by the voters in the future infringing on our right to enjoy the pursuit of game, by whatever means.

The best thing we can do is SUPPORT the DFG and it's role as resource managers and educators for the State, and make it known that land conservation, hunting and outdoor education is important to your legislators and Governor before it's too late. It already may be.

singleshotman
07-28-2008, 11:56 AM
We don't have to boycot the DFG, it's totally uneeded.I've seen your "Average Hunter" at the Chabot Gun Club every sunday in August.HE is much closer to "Elmer Fud" than you think. Most of the "Big Game" hunters buy one pack of 20 rounds, shoot 3 or 4 of them and go hunting, that's what my Grandfather did for years.He used to buy a new pack of .250 Savage every year for years, i found them all going thru his effects after he died.When your average hunter finds out he can't buy ammo or go hunting unless he handloads it with copper bullets he'll give up hunting or poach with a .22, like a friend of mine did during the depression. Either way their will be NO MONEY spend on Hunting permits, Enough said.Your average hunter knowing nothing of non-lead bullets, he can barely fingure-out which of the barrel the bullet comes out.Why do you think landowners hate hunters?

RRangel
07-28-2008, 12:12 PM
This lead-ban isn't about taking gun rights away, it's about the right for a species of this planet a small shot at survival. Imagine the damage to water quality and aquatic life if we were all were still throwing lead shot into CA's estuaries and rivers for the last 20 years.


For the most part I agree with your post, but the lead ban helps take gun rights away as it is a foot in the door for more onerous laws. The gun banners like Paul Helmke are salivating over having this become law.

Regardless of opinions, creating more restriction on what hunters can do, especially the kind of ammo that is legal is already leading to lost license sales, and less participation in the sport that needs all the hunters it can get.

As you noted less participation will lead to less wildlife conservation being that the sport of hunting is closely related to conservation efforts, and is actually conservation in practice. Proponents of this law claim to be pro conservation, but this law is actually backfiring in a big way by alienating hunters, and it will have the opposite affect on wildlife. The do gooders should have thought of that before they pushed the lead ban.

M. Sage
07-28-2008, 12:50 PM
DFG didn't want this law it doesn't like this law, it wishes this law would go away. It's causing them no end of grief.

They wanted it, they love it... and their regulations adopted just after the law was passed expanded on it.

HunterJim
07-28-2008, 12:56 PM
Mudhen,

You sound like a DFG employee!

As a county f&w commissioner, I have a different view of DFG: a bureaucracy where things take as long as they take and cost as much as they cost. For example the Game Bird Heritage Program now sends over 40% of its revenue from our tags to Sacramento for "overhead". The pig tags were intended to improve pig hunting: after tag returns showed 93% of pigs were taken on private land, the "pig staffer" was reassigned and the tag money went where ever. It does not go to pigs.

I have been expecting folks to start shooting condors in frustration.

I hunt out of state too.

jim

jmlivingston
07-28-2008, 1:24 PM
DFG didn't want this law it doesn't like this law, it wishes this law would go away. It's causing them no end of grief. The Legislature is responsible for this law and as long as we keep electing liberals we will get more of the same.


Bull.

The DFG was in the process of banning lead ammo via regulation when the Guvanator called for the head of the departments resignation after a protest letter was signed by the Republican members of the legislature. Hearings on this subject had been on-going for several years and we had succesfully delayed its implementation several times. The legislature was the body that did finally enact the law that prohibits lead ammo for game animals in the condor areas. It was the DFG directly through the regulatory process that prohibited the use of lead-based ammo for non-game animals in that same region; and this occurred after the legislative ban.


Boycotting DFG will solve nothing. We will just lose more of our influence over them.

That, I can agree with!

jmlivingston
07-28-2008, 1:25 PM
Mudhen,

You sound like a DFG employee!


Makes me want to track back his IP address and see where he posted from.....

John

11Z50
07-28-2008, 5:55 PM
If DFG was a pro-hunting organization, it would have recommended that the non-lead slugs be used for big-game and left the non-game ground squirrel shooters alone. Thousands more shooters blast ground squirrels for fun and varmint elimination than those who hunt deer. The number of deer actually taken is small, and most deer hunters don't mind using non-lead ammo. They fire very few shots if any in the course of a season anyhow.

We squirrel shooters shoot thousands of rounds at them. In a good year I might kill several hundred, and have a great deal of fun doing it. The landowners that allow me to shoot on their land appreciate the elimination and control of the problem animal, which is highly destructive to agriculture. Now it is no longer practical or economical to enjoy a shooting activity many of us have been doing for decades.

The real issue here is the opportunity DFG jumped on to harass hunters in the field, using lead ammo as an excuse. Trust me, I have heard them talking. DFG Wardens in the field will be using this excuse to violate your civil rights. They fully intend to use this silly law to detain you, search you, and arrest you. They will then try to imprison you and take your money and property.

While there is some debate about whether funds we pay to DFG will be missed or not, I don't care. I refuse to pay anymore money to CA DFG and will spend my money elsewhere. If I want to hunt deer, I'll go to another state. I'm considering a prairie dog hunt out of state this next spring. Like many other things that are now either illegal or heavily regulated that used to be fun, people will just go elsewhere to enjoy their hobby.

If enough of us stop giving DFG our money, they will notice.

Meplat
07-28-2008, 7:14 PM
WOW!! I must have been badly misinformed. I’ll admit that I got my information from a couple of DFG employees I thought I could trust. I guess they just told me what I wanted to hear. I am not a DFG employee, in fact I fight them hammer and tong on a yearly bases about their unreasonable endangered spices regulations on agriculture. Thanks for setting me straight guys. I still don’t think a boycott is the answer, at least not YET. But it will be fun when it comes to that. I AM a state employee, not in DFG, and I have in the past had a job that had some limited regulatory aspects. Let me tell you straight, there is no state agency that can possibly regulate any activity without voluntary compliance from the regulated group. You can deal with the occasional renegade and you can jawbone the majority, but if the majority decides you are full of *****, your sunk.