CALIFORNIA GPS ?

[meagain]

I to believe that the correct way to go against HSUS is to use a Offensive stand. instead of picking what not to lose...... try to get more so they will have to pick what to stop? Getting Garmin on board is a Great Idea.

[WPM]

Ca DFG did not take gps tracking or treeing switches away. Houndsman give them away in a meeting with dfg in Sac. Back in the 90's dfg came to the hounsman and said the anti's were going back to the voters with a pros. to stop bear hunting and that the hounsman had to give up something to stop this. I was called and asked about this before the meeting and I said do not give them a thing. I had a good friend who was one of the houndsman that went to Sac. and he did not like what went on and had a bad feeling about it (he has since passed on). We lost the lion with the voters, but they tried to get a bobcat and a bear bill passed, but we beat them. Since 117 (mt. lion pros.) we have beat them back. From an old guy who has seen alot of this and was there, even in court when we lost bear hunting for a season.

[Patrick]

WPM,
Your recollection looks to jive with how I remember things happening, although it sounds like you were much more involved. As I recall the talk was we had to lose something, so choose. and that the houndsmen had offered them up and placed them on the table.
I am with you on choosing not to give an inch, but then I don't put in the tremendous thankless hours the guys at CHC do. So I won't criticize their past or present judgements because I would likely see things differently if I was in the middle of it up to my neck.
My current feeling is still that the foucs should be on keeping our hunting seasons (and managing through sound biological opinion) and preserving our hunting access, but that is just my view. I don't see aids and gadgets being of the same level of importance. Maybe someday I will be in a position to be more involved at the state level and my views will change after pounding my head against those walls.
Pat

[RIFLEMAN]

Boss Hog,

just wondering if were ever gonna get to use gps here in the great state of california ? is anyone pushing the issue in sac ? where dose the chc stand ? or do they even care ?

In 2010, the Department of Fish and Game submitted proposals to legalize GPS dog recovery solutions for hounds, legalize treeing switches, and decrease the size of the dog control zones. These proposals were included with others that would expand bear hunting to San Luis Obispo County and eliminate the in-season closure mechanism of 1,700 bears. Though the proposals of interest to us did generate some resistance by the anti's, it was the latter two proposals that received the overwhelming majority of opposition. As the Department was unable to fully comply with the stipulations of CEQA ("California Environmental Quality Act") as they related to the need to respond to all comments received within the 45-day public viewing period, they asked the Commission to take no position on the set of proposals.

I can assure you that this issue remains important to CHC, as is evident in every CHC newsletter.

[RIFLEMAN]

Pat,

As I recall the talk was we had to lose something, so choose. and that the houndsmen had offered them up and placed them on the table.

This concession was made before I became involved with CHC, but yes, this is my understanding, too. As I understand it, it was decided that it was far better to give up something nobody cared much about (treeing switches) and something that didn't yet exist (GPS dog recovery solutions) rather than risking what is truly important to us (pursuing mammals with hounds). Like you, I believe in holding the line, and while I don't agree with the decision that was made, I understand how they came to it. If you recall, this was during the same era as when former Director Boyd Gibbons submitted an editorial to Outdoor Life advocating for the end of hound hunting.

My current feeling is still that the foucs should be on keeping our hunting seasons (and managing through sound biological opinion) and preserving our hunting access, but that is just my view.

These are certainly important to CHC, too, and share a spot on our list of priorities with GPS.

I don't see aids and gadgets being of the same level of importance.

I don't consider this to be merely a case for using aids and gadgets. This is a matter of animal welfare, plain and simple. I've been on a mission to get GPS legalized since December 7, 2007 when my favorite hound was killed by a car not more than a few hundred yards away from me. He would not have been killed had I been able to use GPS instead of radio telemetry. There is no logical reason why GPS should not be legal for hounds, period.

[BOSS HOG]

I can assure you that this issue remains important to CHC, as is evident in every CHC newsletter.

What news letters ? Iv never received any news letters

[RIFLEMAN]

Boss Hog,

What news letters ? Iv never received any news letters

Is your membership current? If so, and we have your correct address on file, you should receive the quarterly newsletters.

[Dave Johnson]

.

[Glen]

So what is the penalty for useing GPS collars in Cali?

Exacution at dawn!