BigGameHoundsmen.com

Guess what, we will get season two of Wild Justice! Like there isn't enough shit in the world that really pisses me off. Go right to the top, over the producers head. Natgeo Channels spokeswoman is Dara Klatt (202)-912-6720 email: DaraKlatt@natgeochannel.com or Russell Howard, Senior Vice President of Communications, (202)-912-6720 email: RussellHoward@natgeochannel.com and ask them why the Wild Justice episode featuring Christopher Fisher is no longer in reruns. And the next time you feel a California warden is crossing the line ask him or her if they are familiar with the recent California court case People vs. Maikhio when they want to search your vehicle or home. I hope the camera crews are out April 1 catching the action on California's first annual "Right to Hunt at Night With Light", it would definitely make a real interesting episode. Just to be fair California has 35 million people, 155,959 square miles, and only a little over 200 wardens. Florida, on the other coast has 16 million people, 53,927 square miles, and over 700 wardens, of course they got gators and armadillos. -Pete

Jim Harris : Excellent post you made .I do try to make points to National Orgs and will continue to do so . But at times we Sportsmen are are own worst enemies Lack of motivation on topics that are near and dear to us all be they Hounding , Hunting , Fishing ,Trapping or just plain outdoor recreational use.

Yes I try to incorporate the points you have made ,But I feel that I have had better response from local and state legislatures. At least the local and state people somewhat take it to heart when they are REMINDED in Polite words that for their Towns Counties and Districts that X amount of Licenses Hunting ,fishing Trapping etc have been sold mostly to Voters When applicable I also try to include the economic impact that that makes both resident and non-resident . In these tough economic times they always seem to be reaching out for Something to make their final decisions .Always trying to keep the pressure on them but in a kind and respectable way.

Governor Jerry Brown
Governor of California State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814
e-mail: governor@governor.ca.gov

CADFG Director John McCamman
1416 9th Street, 12th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
e-mail: director@dfg.ca.gov

President CA Fish and Game Commision Jim Kellogg
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320, Sacramento, CA 95814
e-mail: fgc@fgc.ca.gov

I think they are considered peace officers, But really for the most part I dont see them arresting many people for violations. Thats just more of the crap they put in the wording of the laws. It says (A person shall not be ARRESTED for violation of this section except by a peace officer) it dont say they cant cite you, impound your truck, take your guns, take your dogs. And Im sure if you called them on it you would be told some BS about it being left up to the wardens discretion.

Shawn, take a look at this. Edit, spell check it, whatever:
********************
Gentlemen,

Recently I have been viewing a television broadcast on the National Geographic Channel called “Wild Justice”. The show involves Fish and Game Officers and their encounters with suspected fish and game violators while they are on patrol. I am an avid sportsman and support the protection of our natural resources and fish and game. However, I feel that this type of a program does not shed a positive light on ethical sportsmen. I also feel that the California Fish and Game Officer is not being portrayed to the public as an honorable, public servant and protector of our valued resources.

First of all, nearly every contact that is shown between officer and citizen is in a violation type setting. The officer has his bad guy. There is very little positive content towards hunting and fishing. The way the show is edited and produced it gives the appearance to the unknowing public that every person in the field hunting or fishing is a violator. In fact several of the comments made by fish and game officers give the impression that the DFG is full of officers who are against hunting and fishing. Where are the positive comments about the millions of legal hunters? The only pleasant comments by officers that are aired are to other law enforcement officers or the non-sporting public. Is this the type of attitude that you want to portray to the hunting public? Are legal hunters not a valuable source of information for officers in the field? I would venture to say that a large number of violations that are reported come from legal hunters in the field. Why aren’t we seeing these hunters in the show “Wild Justice”?

The most recent statistics that I can find from the US Fish and Wildlife Service shows that out of the US population six percent of people are hunters, six percent are anti hunters and eighty eight percent of the public are non hunters, meaning they have no persuasion one way or the other at present. We as hunters realize that the battleground for our future lies within that eighty eight percent. As sportsmen it is our responsibility to take every opportunity to shed a positive light on hunting and outdoor recreation. The show “Wild Justice” does not help us accomplish this goal. Hunters are in a fight against a corporate machine, namely the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), who boast multi-million dollar budgets, professional research and marketing staff. As if that is not enough of a paramount battle we have a show like this that targets hunters and sends negative press to 22 million homes. We cannot afford for that type of negative tripe to find more of foothold in the minds of our non-sporting public.

Furthermore, the California Department of Fish and Game is funded by hunter’s dollars and the very assets that we pay to support are being used by a private corporation to send a negative message about hunting and fishing. While sportsmen do not condone the illegal taking or exploitation of wildlife in any form, we also do not want a corporation to obscure the true picture of hunting. It is no secret that National Geographic has moved it’s camp dangerously close to the enemy camp of the animal rights movement. So much so that sportsmen cannot support them or their views. If the DGF is in fact in support of the sound management of wildlife through hunting and fishing (still proclaimed by professional wildlife biologists as the best management tool) how can you allow our sportsmen funded department to proceed in a profit making venture of a private company that does not reflect that view? I find this unacceptable. This is not simply a show that portrays the average duties of wildlife officers across the state. There are many positive contacts that are made by officers in the field. Why are those not being broadcasted by the producers of the show?

My request is this; please cease any further cooperation with the National Geographic Channel and show producer Jerry Decker until the NatGeo Channel and the producer can report a more balanced script for the show.

Rowdy very well said.

ROWDY, YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.

THE NEXT STEPS.

1. GET ALL THE SPORTSMEN'S GROUPS TUNED INTO THE SITUATION. SOME STATE WIDE SPORTSMAN'S GROUP MAY HAVE A DATA BASE OF MEMBERS NAMES AND E MAIL ADDRESSES AND BE ABLE TO GET THE INFO. QUICKLY TO THEIR MEMBERSHIP. TURKEY GROUPS, RUFFLED GROUSE SOCIETY, TROUT UNLIMITED, DUCKS UNLIMITED. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO RECOGNISE SUTTLE ANTI HUNTING MESSAGE BEING SENT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

2. GET SPORTSMEN NOT MEMBERS OF SPORTSMEN'S GROUPS TUNED IN

3. GET THE ABOVE MENTIONED TO SEND THIS LETTER TO LEGISLTORS AND RULING BURECRATS.

THE NAME OF THE GAME HERE IS SELLING OUR POSITION. THAT TAKES NUMBERS OF PEOPLE TO COMMUNICATE THEIR DISPLEASURE. ONLY A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY WRITE THE LETTER SOOOO YOU NEED TO GET TONS OF PEOPLE TUNED IN REALIZING THAT MAYBE 10 PERCENT WILL ACTUALLY WRITE THE LETTER. THAT IS THE REASON I AM TRYING TO GET THE USSA INVOLVED THEY HAVE EXPERIENCE AND TONS OF PEOPLE. AT THE SAME TIME I WOULD NOT FOR A MINUTE SIT ON MY HANDS AND WAIT FOR THEM, THEY MAY NOT EVEN SHOW UP FOR THE PARTY. DRIVE ON GOOD WORK !!!

4. YOU NEED TO NAME AND GIVE ADDRESSES OF WHO SHOULD RECIEVE THE LETTERS. YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE PROCESS VERY SIMPLE OR THE PUBLIC SIMPLY WILL NOT WRITE THE LETTER. THEY WILL AGREE AND DO NOTHING BUT TALK TO EACH OTHER.

EXAMPLE. I AM 64 YEARS OLD AND NOT ALL THAT COMPUTER LITTERATE. I EXPECT MOST IN MY AGE GROUP ARE NOT, ALONG WITH A GOOD PORTION OF THE SPORTING PUBLIC. I AM NOT SURE THAT A SHORTER LETTER JUST A FEW LINES, LIKE BULLET POINTS MIGHT NOT BE HELPFUL FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND LEAVE THE LENGTHY EXPLANATION TO A FEW WELL VERSED INDIVIDUALES SUCH AS YOURSELF.

5. WHILE THE E MAILS ARE EASY TO SEND I THINK A WRITTEN LETTER CARRIES MORE WEIGHT. IT IS PRETTY EASY TO JUST HIT THE DELETE KEY.


YOU ARE VERY MUCH ON THE RIGHT TRACK. YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEM, DETERMINED WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. NOW THE BIG ONE IS GETTING IT IMPLEMENTED.

JIM HARRIS

verry nice rowdy

Sorry Rowdy Havnt been able to get on the computer for a few days. I like your letter better. The only problem I have with it is it's to long. We need to figure out how to shorten it up. I know for a fact that if a complaint letter is over a few paragraphes it doesnt get read. Let see if we can shorten it and go with your letter.

Shawn

Really, do what ever you want with it.