Swap 2015

[Huntsprig]

A copy and paste with permission.

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/SWAP/Interim-Products

SWAP@wildlife.ca.gov

[Scottie15]

Interesting to note that the SWAP exec summary doesn't even mention hunting until you get to the tables below...

The authors, consultants and other folks providing input aren't even close to representing hunting and fishing interests. This reads very much like a plan on how to avoid people from being able to do any consumptive wildlife activities.

[MJB]

It's been known for a while that invasive species are on the hit list.......it's so vague who knows what's going on

[Scottie15]

Anyone submit comments? Not like it matters...

[chris]

at least it states the south coast area is a Mediterranean climate.

The projected climate changes in the South Coast are expected to mainly intensify patterns that are characteristic of a semi-arid Mediterranean climate (periodic droughts, intense cyclonic rainstorms, dry and hot summers). An important factor for coastal populations is the continuing role of the ocean in moderating coastal climates because of its high heat capacity (NMFS 2012).

[Huntsprig]

Anyone submit comments? Yes, I did.
Not like it matters... Unfortunately you're probably right.

CWA weighs in on draft "State Wildlife Action Plan"

California Waterfowl has weighed in on a draft "State Wildlife Action Plan," strongly objecting to unsubstantiated claims that hunting puts pressure on species conservation targets. All hunters know that legal hunting is done IN ACCORDANCE with conservation goals, not to their detriment.

CWA's comments are below. We also addressed the plan's problems at the Fish & Game Commission and a public meeting about the plan. We'd like to acknowledge and thank other hunters who have weighed in on this as well.

To see the entire draft plan, click here: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/SWAP/Interim-Products

To see the objectionable language regarding hunting, click on the following link and search for the word "hunting" (it's in the tables).: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.a...=100020&inline

The California Waterfowl Association (CWA) would like to provide the following brief comments on the Draft 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan (Plan):

The Plan appears focused almost entirely on the needs of nongame species. For example, there is no discussion about increasing and enhancing managed wetlands and associated upland habitat, which would directly benefit waterfowl and other gamebird species (as well as numerous nongame species) and help achieve bird habitat goals of the Central Valley Joint Venture (of which the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) is a partner to).

If the Plan is truly ecosystem-based and intended to benefit all wildlife species, then additional conservation strategies should be developed which specifically address game species' habitats and needs.

In the absence of direct and significant game species' conservation benefits, CWA believes that no hunting-related monies (e.g. Pittman-Robertson excise tax funds, hunting license and associated stamp/tag funds, etc.) should be used to implement the Plan. Nor should personnel and other resources from DFW's game species programs be utilized for this purpose.

Language in Chapter 5.3 (Bay Delta and Central Coast) identifies hunting and fishing as 'Key Pressures on Conservation Targets". This language should be stricken entirely or, at the very least, narrowed to focus only on illegal hunting and fishing (e.g. poaching).

There is no basis on which to claim that legal hunting and fishing activities are a detriment to wildlife conservation efforts. Hunting and fishing are highly regulated, and seasons and bag limits are annually determined using the best available scientific data. Impacts to nongame species populations and their habitats are negligible. Hunting and fishing regulations are also subject to annual California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.

Rather, legal hunting and fishing activities directly support wildlife conservation through their funding benefits for DFW's conservation and enforcement work, use as a valid wildlife management tool and as an incentive for private landowners to enhance the wildlife values of their property. Hunting and fishing-related nonprofit groups also perform important habitat and other conservation work that benefits both game and nongame species.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

[chris]

CWA weighs in on draft "State Wildlife Action Plan"

California Waterfowl has weighed in on a draft "State Wildlife Action Plan," strongly objecting to unsubstantiated claims that hunting puts pressure on species conservation targets. All hunters know that legal hunting is done IN ACCORDANCE with conservation goals, not to their detriment.

CWA's comments are below. We also addressed the plan's problems at the Fish & Game Commission and a public meeting about the plan. We'd like to acknowledge and thank other hunters who have weighed in on this as well.

To see the entire draft plan, click here: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/SWAP/Interim-Products

To see the objectionable language regarding hunting, click on the following link and search for the word "hunting" (it's in the tables).: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.a...=100020&inline

The California Waterfowl Association (CWA) would like to provide the following brief comments on the Draft 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan (Plan):

The Plan appears focused almost entirely on the needs of nongame species. For example, there is no discussion about increasing and enhancing managed wetlands and associated upland habitat, which would directly benefit waterfowl and other gamebird species (as well as numerous nongame species) and help achieve bird habitat goals of the Central Valley Joint Venture (of which the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) is a partner to).
If the Plan is truly ecosystem-based and intended to benefit all wildlife species, then additional conservation strategies should be developed which specifically address game species' habitats and needs.

In the absence of direct and significant game species' conservation benefits, CWA believes that no hunting-related monies (e.g. Pittman-Robertson excise tax funds, hunting license and associated stamp/tag funds, etc.) should be used to implement the Plan. Nor should personnel and other resources from DFW's game species programs be utilized for this purpose.

I agree with this statement 100% no Pittman-Robertson money should be used for this at all.


Language in Chapter 5.3 (Bay Delta and Central Coast) identifies hunting and fishing as 'Key Pressures on Conservation Targets". This language should be stricken entirely or, at the very least, narrowed to focus only on illegal hunting and fishing (e.g. poaching).



There is no basis on which to claim that legal hunting and fishing activities are a detriment to wildlife conservation efforts. Hunting and fishing are highly regulated, and seasons and bag limits are annually determined using the best available scientific data. Impacts to nongame species populations and their habitats are negligible. Hunting and fishing regulations are also subject to annual California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.

I saw that in the report about legal hunting. I cant say I was surprised they said that considering the makeup if the DFW commission. these morons should be focusing on hunting and fishing and making it better than trying to destroy it.


Rather, legal hunting and fishing activities directly support wildlife conservation through their funding benefits for DFW's conservation and enforcement work, use as a valid wildlife management tool and as an incentive for private landowners to enhance the wildlife values of their property. Hunting and fishing-related nonprofit groups also perform important habitat and other conservation work that benefits both game and nongame species.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

sure looks like CWA pointed out they are not using monies for game animals. well what a surprise. not really though.

emphasis added in bold and color.

I like what the CWA said. but more than likely it will fall on deaf ears with these people. they want money that's all.

[Huntsprig]

sure looks like CWA pointed out they are not using monies for game animals. well what a surprise. not really though.

emphasis added in bold and color.

I like what the CWA said. but more than likely it will fall on deaf ears with these people. they want money that's all.