Alert—Written or Oral Comments Needed to CA Fish and Game Commission

Protect the Wolves, protect the wolves, wolves, wolf, protect yellowstone wolves

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

CALIF FISH AND WILDLIFE MEETING ON OCT 11, WED,2017

AT THE MARRIOT SPRINGHILL SUITES, ATASCADERO, CALIF

Subject:

CA Fish and Game Commission Considers GPS Collars on Dogs to Hunt Mammals

A proposed Fish and Game regulation amendment that will allow hound hunters to use GPS collars and treeing switches on dogs to hunt mammals or to train will be discussed at their meeting next week Atascadero (Oct 11, 2017).

After over a year of contentious debate, last year the FGC approved an amendment to allow GPS collars and tree switches for hound hunting of mammals and dog training.  Due to a lawsuit filed for noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the FGC publicly admitted their mistake and agreed to redo the amendment to “do it right.”  On April 26, 2017, they voted to (1) bring back the ban; (2) delay implementing it for one year; and (3) go to notice to amend the regs to again allow GPS and treeing switches and comply with CEQA.

However, unconfirmed reports from FGC staff indicate a change of direction:  There will be no analysis via a “Draft Environmental Document as promised and required by CEQA.  Common sense dictates that if GPS collars are allowed to take/pursue mammals and train dogs, then more dogs will be released into wildlife habitat, thus creating significant impacts.  Hound hunting is fraught with wildlife disturbances and animal cruelty issues as dogs are released and “cross scent” to maim, wound, or fatally injure both targeted and non-targeted animals in the wild.  Other than nine states in the Deep South, California is the only state on the mainland that allows deer-hound hunting (reportedly Hawaii also allows it).

Groups involved with wildlife rescue and rehab can attest to the tragedies, especially of fawn attacks.  Dogs are often wounded in altercations and/or incur lethal injuries when confronting other predators in wildlife habitat.  With increases in released dogs due to GPS collar allowance, negative impacts will be significantly increased.

Currently hounders can use radio telemetry collars and claim to abide by “fair chase” and “ethical hunting” principles.  However, hunting in general has reached a tipping point in abandoning these principles with mind-boggling advancements in technology.  If GPS collars are approved by the CA FGC (final hearing and vote planned for December, 2017), then hounders will have no incentive to keep up with their dogs in wildlife habitat and terrain when they can sit in vehicles and watch a screen as their dogs range many miles, which in turn appears to be a violation of FG Code 3008 that requires dogs to be under control.

More information regarding the October 11 meeting can be found on the FGC’s website, www.fgc.ca.gov

 

            Second, here’s the alert:

Alert—Written or Oral Comments Needed to CA Fish and Game Commission

            It’s back!  The proposed Fish and Game regulation amendment to allow hound hunters to use GPS collars and treeing switches on dogs to hunt mammals or train is Item 7 on the agenda for next week’s meeting in Atascadero (Oct 11, 2017).  As the second of three steps, it would be extremely helpful if as many as possible can show up to speak out publicly to oppose the proposed amendment, support allies, and/or send letters and emails ([email protected]) to the FGC before noon on Friday, October 6, 2017.

Summary.  After over a year of contentious debate, the FGC approved an amendment to allow GPS collars and tree switches for hound hunting of mammals and dog training.  Due to a lawsuit filed for noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the FGC publicly admitted noncompliance and agreed to redo the amendment to “do it right.”  On April 26, 2017, they voted to (1) bring back the ban [good]; (2) delay implementing it for one year [bad]; and (3) go to notice to amend the regs to again allow GPS and treeing switches [worse].

In an unbelievable turn, FGC staff has now indicated that there will be no analysis or required “Draft Environmental Document” (DED) prepared because they have determined that the proposed amendment is “exempt” from CEQA (!).  Unfortunately, the “Meeting Binder” or documents have not yet been posted as of this writing; thus the accuracy of that unacceptable position cannot be confirmed.  Because time is of the essence, comments in opposition should be sent now.

Discussion Issues.  Common sense dictates that if GPS collars are allowed to take/pursue mammals and train dogs, then more dogs will be released into wildlife habitat.  Hound hunting is fraught with wildlife disturbances and animal cruelty issues as dogs are released and “cross scent” to maim, wound, or fatally injure both targeted and non-targeted animals in the wild.  Other than nine states in the Deep South, California is the only state on the mainland that allows deer-hound hunting (reportedly Hawaii also allows it).

Groups involved with wildlife rescue and rehab can attest to the tragedies, especially of fawn attacks.  Hounds themselves are often wounded in altercations and/or incur lethal injuries when confronting other predators in wildlife habitat.  Much of this barbaric mayhem is immortalized on the Internet via seemingly gleeful and proud houndsmen/women (hounders) posting videos of their blood sport with shouts of “GET ‘EM [dog’s name!]” as the terrified prey is attacked.  With increases in released dogs due to GPS collar allowance, negative impacts will be significantly increased.

A few hounders claim to abide by “fair chase” and “ethical hunting” principles, but hunting in general has reached a tipping point in abandoning these principles with mind-boggling advancements in technology.  If GPS collars are approved by the CA FGC (final hearing and vote planned for December, 2017), then hounders will have no incentive to keep up with their dogs in wildlife habitat and terrain when they can sit in vehicles and watch a screen indicating their dogs’ ranging 1, 4, or 7 miles—or more—which in turn should be a violation of FG Code 3008 that requires dogs to be under control.

Please email comments to [email protected] and oppose the proposed amendment to Section 265, Title 14, CCR.  To reach the commissioners, it’s best to submit them before noon on Friday.  However, the law stipulates that any oral or written comments submitted before the final vote become part of the “administrative record.”  If you can attend in person, the meeting starts at 8:30 a.m., at Marriot’s Spring Hill Suites, 900 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422.  This item is No. 7, but agenda order can be changed.

Thank you for any support you can provide to stop the use of GPS collars and treeing switches on hounds to hunt mammals.

Sacramento Bee uses 2 different headlines

protect california wolves, protect the wolves, wolves, wolf, lassen pack

 

Its a Sad day when the Sacramento Bee uses 2 different headlines…. one for the paper, and a different one for online….. what might their intentions be? Trying to suck up to their readers????

Another wolf pack has been found in rural Northern California, complete with pups. The family is descended from the famous wolf OR7, who roamed the north state for several years after migrating from Oregon.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife reported Wednesday that its biologists have fitted a tracking collar on a female gray wolf in Lassen County. Officials said they’ve confirmed that the wolf and her mate have produced at least three pups this year.

The 75-pound female was captured and fitted for a collar June 30, after 12 days of trapping attempts, the department said. “The anesthesia and collaring process went smoothly and the wolf was in excellent condition,” said the department’s senior wildlife veterinarian Dr. Deana Clifford in a prepared statement. “Furthermore, our physical examination indicated that she had given birth to pups this spring.”

The department said a trail camera operated by the U.S. Forest Service showed the female wolf with her three pups. The adults were first spotted on camera last summer .

The family has been dubbed the Lassen Pack.

Environmentalists celebrated the announcement.

“It’s pretty fabulous news for California and for wolves,” said Amaroq Weiss, a wolf advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity.

The development could be viewed with suspicion among California ranchers and farmers, who view gray wolves as a threat to livestock. In February the California Farm Bureau and California Cattlemen’s Association sued the state over the Fish and Game Commission’s decision in 2014 to list the gray wolf as endangered.

Jordan Traverso, a spokeswoman for the California Fish and Wildlife department, said the tracking collar on the Lassen Pack’s adult female could help minimize the friction with ranchers.

But she said the wolf population in Northern California is likely to grow. “More wolves will establish,” she said.

The Lassen Pack is the second known family of wolves in Northern California in 90 years. The Shasta Pack, discovered in 2015, is believed to have produced at least five pups. Although one of the pups was detected in western Nevada last November, the pack’s status is unknown.

As for the just-discovered wolf pack, the pups’ father is the son of OR7.

OR7 became a media sensation when he left Oregon and crossed into California in late 2011, becoming the first wild wolf in the state in nearly 90 years. He is estimated to have roamed 3,000 miles in California’s remote northeast corner before returning to Oregon.

Source: New wolf pack found in Northern California | The Sacramento Bee

CDFW Confirms Presence of Wolf Pack in Lassen County, Collars Adult Wolf 

protect the wolves, lassen pack, wolves in california

Not very far from us…. perhaps they will come closer so we can keep a watchfull eye on them!

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) biologists have captured and fitted a tracking collar to a female gray wolf in Lassen County, and confirmed that the wolf and her mate have produced at least three pups this year.

During summer and fall 2016, remote trail cameras captured images of two wolves traveling together in Lassen County. There was no evidence they had produced pups at that time. While the female’s origins remain unknown, genetic samples obtained from scat indicated the male wolf originated from Oregon’s Rogue Pack. The famous wolf OR7 is the Rogue Pack’s breeding male.

In early May 2017, partner biologists from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) found evidence of recent wolf presence in the Lassen National Forest. CDFW biologists began surveying the area and planning a capture operation to collar one of the animals. On June 30, after 12 days of trapping attempts, the 75-pound adult female gray wolf was captured. After a thorough exam by the biologists and a wildlife veterinarian – including the collection of genetic and other biological samples – the wolf was collared and released.

“The anesthesia and collaring process went smoothly and the wolf was in excellent condition,” said CDFW’s Senior Wildlife Veterinarian Dr. Deana Clifford. “Furthermore, our physical examination indicated that she had given birth to pups this spring.”

The following day, July 1, CDFW biologists returned to the field for a routine follow-up check on the female. They encountered tracks of what appeared to be wolf pups, and then found that a nearby trail camera operated by USFS had captured photos of the female with three pups. The pups were gray in color and were serendipitously photographed playing in front of the camera.

These wolves, named the Lassen Pack by the USFS employee who first detected their location, are the second pack of gray wolves known in California since their extirpation in the 1920s. The first confirmed breeding pair in California produced five pups in eastern Siskiyou County in 2015, and are known as the Shasta Pack. The current status of the Shasta Pack is unknown, although one of the 2015 pups was detected in northwestern Nevada in November 2016.

The tracking collar affixed to the Lassen Pack female will collect data relative to her activity patterns, survival, reproduction and prey preferences. The Lassen Pack regularly traverses both public and private lands, including industrial timberlands, and the collar may also help to minimize wolf-livestock conflicts by providing information about the pack’s location relative to livestock and ranch lands. While most of the pack’s known activity to date has been in western Lassen County, some tracks have also been confirmed in Plumas County.

Gray wolves are currently both state and federally listed as endangered. Their management in California is guided by endangered species laws as well as CDFW’s Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California, finalized in 2016. CDFW’s goals for wolf management in California include conserving wolves and minimizing impacts to livestock producers and native ungulates.

The Conservation Plan, a wolf sighting report form, a guide to help distinguish a gray wolf from a coyote and additional information about wolves in California can be found at www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Gray-Wolf.

Photos courtesy of USFS.

Source: CDFW Confirms Presence of Wolf Pack in Lassen County, Collars Adult Wolf | CDFW News

California Fish and Game Meeting April 26-27, 2017

protect california wolves, protect the wolves, wolves, wolf

PROTECT THE WOLVES™ INVITES YOU TO JOIN THEM
ON APRIL 26th and 27th.

 TO ATTEND A VERY IMPORTANT MEETING!

WE NEED A LINE TO BE DRAWN IN THE SAND!!

IF YOU DON’T THINK THAT THIS FIGHT DOESN’T INVOLVE YOU,

THINK AGAIN!!

THE FATE OF ALL CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE IS AT STAKE HERE!!!  GUESS WHAT… YOUR TAX DOLLARS  SUPPORT THE SHORT FALLS OF THE HUNTING AND TRAPPING INDUSTRY!

AT THE AIRTEL PLAZA HOTEL. VAN NUYS, CA 9AM
7277 Valjean Ave, Van Nuys, CA 91406

 

YOUR Tax Dollars should not be paying for something that we do not participate in!! Show Up and let them know your not happy!

Protect The Wolves™ has a Problem with the Commission meeting in private regarding the suit brought by the Cattlemen’s Association in Private. These meetings should be Transparent especially when it involves a Special Interest Group like Ranchers.

At this  meeting there are Very Concerning subjects being discussed.

Use of dogs for the pursuit/take of mammals or for dog training (Section 265, Title 14, CCR)

(A) Adopt proposed changes to regulations

(B) Authorize publication of notice of intent to amend regulations

If you are Close to Van nuys, Please show up and Make your Voice Heard.

 

California Commissioners EXECUTIVE SESSION (Not Open to Public)

Pursuant to the authority of Government Code Section 11126(a)(1), (c)(3), and (e)(1), and Section 309 of the Fish and Game Code, the Commission will meet in closed Executive Session. The purpose of this Executive Session is to consider:

(A) Pending litigation to which the Commission is a

Party I. Big Creek Lumber Company and Central Coast Forest Assoc. v. California Fish and Game Commission (Coho listing, south of San Francisco)

II. Center for Biological Diversity and Earth Island Institute v. California Fish and Game Commission (failure to list black-backed woodpecker)

III. Dennis Sturgell v. California Fish and Game Commission, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Office of Administrative Hearings (revocation of Dungeness Crab Vessel Permit No. CT0544-T1)

IV. Kele Young v. California Fish and Game Commission, et al. (restricted species inspection fee waiver)

V. Public Interest Coalition v. California Fish and Game Commission (California Environmental Quality Act)

VI. California Cattlemen’s Association, et al. v. California Fish and Game Commission (gray wolf listing)

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar

Categories

%d bloggers like this: