California Dfg reversing new law allowing GPS

[bigboarstopper]

I'm sorry but I don't know how to cut and paste from Facebook but "outdoor sportsmans coaltion" is reporting Dfg may be reversing the law allowing the use of GPS for hounds. As if I didn't hate this state enough already

[Dale T]

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2016/#265_2

[Grzyadms4x4]

So if I get this right, they need to repeal the authorization of use of gps to settle a lawsuit accusing them of not following procedures when they passed it the first time. Then they'll analyse and inform the commission. Then what?

TITLE 14. Fish and Game Commission
Notice of Proposed Changes in Regulations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fish and Game Commission (Commission), pursuant to the
authority vested by Sections: 200, 202, 203, 3960, 3960.2 and 3960.4 of the Fish and Game Code
and to implement, interpret or make specific Sections 3960, 3960.2 and 3960.4 of said Code,
proposes to amend Section 265, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, relating to Use of Dogs for
Pursuit/Take of Mammals or for Dog Training
Informative Digest/Policy Statement Overview – Inland Fisheries
In April 2016, the Fish and Game Commission adopted changes to Section 265, Title 14, California
Code of Regulations authorizing the use of GPS collars and treeing switches for dogs aiding a hunter.
The Public Interest Coalition filed a petition in Superior Court in Sacramento County (Case No. 34-
2016-80002350) seeking a Writ of Mandate invalidating the Fish and Game Commission’s action.
That petition alleges that the Commission failed to comply with the procedural requirements of CEQA.
The Commission has determined that further rulemaking may be necessary to resolve that litigation.
The rulemaking and the related CEQA analysis will also help to further inform the Commission about
the issues related to regulating the use of dogs as an aid in hunting and associated equipment for
those dogs. The proposed amended language would be necessary for such purposes.
Amend Section 265, Title 14, CCR, by adding new subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2) to prohibit the use of
treeing switches and GPS collar equipment for dogs used in the taking of mammals.
Benefits of the regulations
The regulation prohibits the use of treeing switches or GPS equipped collars on dogs used for the
pursuit/take of mammals.
Consistency and Compatibility with State Regulations
The Fish and Game Commission, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Sections 200, 202 and 203, has
the sole authority to regulate hunting in California. Commission staff has searched the California
Code of Regulations and has found no other agency with the authority to regulate the use of dogs for
hunting mammals. Therefore the Commission has determined that the proposed amendments are
neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing State regulations.
NOTICE IS GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or in writing, relevant to
this action at a hearing to be held in the Hilton Garden Inn San Diego Mission Valley/Stadium, 3805
Murphy Canyon Road, San Diego, California, on Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 8:00 a.m.; or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.
NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or in writing,
relevant to this action at a hearing to be held in Santa Rosa, California, on February 8, 2017, at 8:00
a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard (a specific location will be determined and
provided to interested and affected parties). It is requested, but not required, that written comments
be submitted on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 19, 2017 at the address given below, or by email to
FGC@fgc.ca.gov. Written comments mailed, or emailed to the Commission office, must be received
before 12:00 noon on February 3, 2017. All comments must be received no later than February 8,2017, at the hearing in Santa Rosa, California. If you would like copies of any modifications to this
proposal, please include your name and mailing address.
Availability of Documents
The Initial Statement of Reasons, text of the regulations, as well as all related documents upon which
the proposal is based (rulemaking file), are on file and available for public review from the agency
representative, Valerie Termini, Executive Director, Fish and Game Commission, 1416 Ninth Street,
Box 944209, Sacramento, California 94244-2090, phone (916) 653-4899. Please direct requests for
the above mentioned documents and inquiries concerning the regulatory process to Valerie Termini
or Jon Snellstrom at the preceding address or phone number. Craig Stowers, Environmental
Program Manager, Department of Fish and Wildlife, phone (916) 445-3553, has been designated
to respond to questions on the substance of the proposed Use of Dogs for Pursuit regulations. Copies
of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regulation in
underline and strikeout can be accessed through our website at http://www.fgc.ca.gov.
Availability of Modified Text
If the regulations adopted by the Commission differ from but are sufficiently related to the action
proposed, they will be available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date of adoption.
Circumstances beyond the control of the Commission (e.g., timing of Federal regulation adoption,
timing of resource data collection, timelines do not allow, etc.) or changes made to be responsive to
public recommendation and comments during the regulatory process may preclude full compliance
with the 15-day comment period, and the Commission will exercise its powers under Section 202 of
the Fish and Game Code. Regulations adopted pursuant to this section are not subject to the time
periods for adoption, amendment or repeal of regulations prescribed in Sections 11343.4, 11346.4
and 11346.8 of the Government Code. Any person interested may obtain a copy of said regulations
prior to the date of adoption by contacting the agency representative named herein.
If the regulatory proposal is adopted, the final statement of reasons may be obtained from the
address above when it has been received from the agency program staff.
Impact of Regulatory Action/Results of the Economic Impact Assessment
The potential for significant statewide adverse economic impacts that might result from the proposed
regulatory action has been assessed, and the following initial determinations relative to the required
statutory categories have been made:
(a)
Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Businesses, Including
the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States:
The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly
affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses
in other states. The proposed regulations will affect a limited number of hunters who pursue
mammals with dogs. These hunters may still use other, non-GPS radio collar technology to
track and retrieve dogs during the hunt.
(b)
Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State, the Creation of New
Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or the Expansion of Businesses in
California; Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents,
Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment:
2The proposed action will not have significant impacts on the creation or elimination of jobs
within the state, the creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses, or
the expansion of businesses in California. Sales of GPS collars are not anticipated to
decrease as a result of the proposed regulation because GPS collars can still be used by
dog owners in a wide variety of applications other than hunting. The Commission does not
anticipate benefits to the health and welfare of California Residents, benefits to worker
safety, nor to the State’s environment.
(c) Cost Impacts on Representative Private Persons/Business:
The Commission is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or
business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.
(d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State:
None.
(e) Other Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies: None.
(f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts: None.
(g) Costs Imposed on Any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be Reimbursed
under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4: None.
(h) Effect on Housing Costs: None.
Effect on Small Business
It has been determined that the adoption of these regulations may affect small business. The
Commission has drafted the regulations in Plain English pursuant to Government Code
Sections 11342.580 and 11346.2(a)(1).
Consideration of Alternatives
The Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Commission, or
that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Commission, would be more
effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less
burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost effective to
affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision
of law.
FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
Dated: November 1, 2016
Valerie Termini
Executive Director

[bearsnva]

This is the clearest language explaining what is going on I could find. Naturally it is from an anti hunting group's perspective. Hope you guys in Cali can beat this back once again. Good luck.

Nov 21, 2016 — The lawsuit to oppose the California Fish and Game’s approval of GPS collars on hounds to hunt deer and pigs and for training is alive and well but now on hold. Now the FGC has proposed to BAN GPS collars on hounds for pursuing/killing mammals until further “analysis” is completed. This is certainly the right step, but they should have also included a ban on GPS collars for hound “training” as well.
Because time is of the essence, please send an email to the FGC at fgc@fgc.ca.gov and ask them to ADD to their proposed GPS hound collar ban (Section 265, Title 14, CCR) the words, “or for dog training.” Comments received BEFORE Tues, Nov 22, noon (Pacific Time), are sent to the commissioners. After that, they are made “available,” to them, but marked “late.” If you only have time to send one sentence, make it: “To the proposed amendment to Section 265, please add a ban on dog training with GPS collars.”

[justahunter]

Those Damn people need to choke on there salad's . would be nice if they get trumped lol.

[baiz]

COHA should put out a put a semi scientific survey with relevant questions to all its members. This could be submitted to the commission to help aid in the "studies"

Number one complaint by Anti's is that it aids our success. Im new to GPS but "does it help catch more Game" My answer is a solid no it does not. Does it let you retrieve your dogs faster, yes. Does it aid in enabling you to catch your dogs before they venture where you dont want them, yes it does. This could be a good way to help our cause out.

Thought's?

[Dale T]

COHA dis-banded about 3 years ago and there main guy Bill Gaines is the lobbyist for CHC now. We have explained to the commission over and over about what the collars are used for and they for the most part agree, but the anti's are against ANYTHING AND I MEAN ANYTHING we want!