New Take on Prop. 117

[Peter Meyer]

Here's a new take on getting around 117's ban on mountain lion parts. In California I can harvest an elk in Montana and legally bring the meat,hide, and antlers home. In California I can legally harvest any number of African game animals in Africa and bring the hide and horns or antlers home. I can also take a grizzly in Alaska and legally import it into the state. This is all pretty reasonable unless you are an anti-hunter or animal right activist. It is all legal and in my opinion completely reasonable.
I cannot go to Nevada, legally take a mountain lion, have it permanently sealed by a member of the Nevada Department of Wildlife and bring it home. I would be subject to up to a $10,000 dollar fine, up to a year in jail, and most definitely seizure of said mountain lion parts. THIS IS UNREASONABLE.
The fourth amendment of the Constitution guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." To my simple thinking it sounds to me like the ban instituted by Prop. 117 is unconstitutional. Let me know what you think. -Pete

[FullCryHounds]

I can't even send a sealed lion hide to a tanner in CA to have it tanned and sent back. The tanners are not allowed to accept them. Yes, unreasonable. There has been a lot of discussion about the 117 ban. However, as far as I know, there has not been anyone convicted of any of these 'crimes' because the Ca DFG has not gone after anyone. In an attempt to challenge the law, there has been several guys call DFG, tell them they were bringing a lion into CA and they told them when and where they would be doing it. The DFG didn't show up.

[bvg]

when I do decide to take a good mature tom I will have it seald by ndow and bring it back they can kiss my A$$$$!!!! Ill see them in court. we are suposed to live in a free counrty Ca wants to protect us to death at our cost. wear a seat belt, wear a helmet,dont talk on that phone,dont hurt that poor littel bear and oh yeah! lions are almost extinct in Ca. Sorry got of track what I ment to say is yeah I think it is unfair to!

[kickemall]

Peter, I agree with you, but I don't see how you can connect Prop. 117 and the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment is about unreasonable search and seizures but not a catch all for all things we consider unreasonable. As we all are aware, our "free" country is not as free as we would like to think but I haven't found a better one yet.

[Pops]

understand i'm no lawyer and so my opinion is worth squat. the commercial tanneries have the best chance by suing under Atricle I Section 8 Clause 3 (the commerce clause, it worked for AZ guides fighting changes in tag allocation). individuals best chance may be under the 14th amendment (equal protection) since it favors one class of hunter over another.

[R.M.]

Yes Peter, I agree that Prop. 117 is unconstitutional. If this was a law that hindered the antis, gays, tree-huggers or any other out-of-touch-with-reality leftist group they would jump allover this and have Prop. 117 reversed. But since it's just us houndsmen we haven't done anything yet. I like bvg's plan, but I don't think I like it enough to try it myself...I could just see the headlines on our local newspaper.

Anyway, I would fully support any body or group that takes on Prop. 117 to get it reversed. Is there any way California Houndsman for Conservation could get involved?

[raxntrax]

I contacted the main fish and game office in Sac. a few years ago on this subject. The head man in law enforcement for Cal. ( can't remember his name ) told me. " if they have a "complaint" about someone having a lion mounted in their house they have to check it out. If you can prove the lion was leagally harvested and mounted in another state they will walk off and wish you good day. They have bigger fish to fry than fighting that out in court. That was a few years ago. Things might be different now.