Nuther Reason To HATE Calif.

[MattB]

Other than the lack of non-lead .22 LR, this is much to do about nothing IMO. The science in regards to the condors is cr@p, but the implications of this legislation which takes full effect in 2019 are not that significant. Moonbeam even made sure the underlying legislation included some "out" language for the benefit of sportsmen in the event that the unavailability of certified ammunition was to preclude legal hunting.

 

[Mike21]

The land of fruits and nuts does it again. Great example of when a certain political party gains complete power. Oregon just past universal gun legislation (all liberals), colorado outlawed standard capacity mags and backgrounds (all liberals), and besides the draconian gun laws of Cali now you can't hunt with affordable- lethal ammunition. Probably start inspecting for lead like they do fruit at the border now. People (many on this forum) try to tip toe on "both sides of the political isle" when expressing opinions but the facts don't lie. If you vote for liberal pols then you are doing so at the expense of freedom to hunt and own firearms.

 

[airlocksniffer]

If you vote for liberal pols then you are doing so at the expense of freedom to hunt and own firearms.

Except for the whole state transfer of federal lands, eh? This has much more conservative support and is much more likely to limit hunting for you and me.

 

[topher89]

Except for the whole state transfer of federal lands, eh? This has much more conservative support and is much more likely to limit hunting for you and me.

Great point. Republicans selling off federal land will limit hunting waaaayyy more than lead bans. Barnes makes great bullets, its not like a lead ban means the end of rifle hunting. Its not good but I am still way more worried about public land access

 

[Jason Snyder]

Except for the whole state transfer of federal lands, eh? This has much more conservative support and is much more likely to limit hunting for you and me.

Well said. Start saving your money for hunting leases.

 

[Mike21]

Except for the whole state transfer of federal lands, eh? This has much more conservative support and is much more likely to limit hunting for you and me.

Since the Feds are doing such a good job with the land why don't we transfer the management of the game as well eh? Seems to me states like montana do a good job of managing wildlife and state land, right? Never mind the fact that gun control through any measure is much more of an attack than the chance of selling public lands.

Name me one state that has strict gun laws and good wilderness/backcountry hunting? How is hunt opportunity in Cali? Name the three best states for back country hunting, montana, Idaho, Wyoming is a pretty good start. Very un restrictive gun laws as well.

 

[MattB]

Since the Feds are doing such a good job with the land why don't we transfer the management of the game as well eh? Seems to me states like montana do a good job of managing wildlife and state land, right?

That is total nonsequitur.

Given your apparent dislike of restrictive rules, the federal land management/state game management is the best of both worlds. But I'd bet that - based on your position - you have not researched the rules that the various western states apply to state-owned land compared to the rules that exist on federal land.

Never mind the fact that gun control through any measure is much more of an attack than the chance of selling public lands.

You are mis-representing your opinion as fact, and I personally disagree with your opinion. It is very easy to contrive a variety of scenarios where the transfer of state lands (e.g. inability to camp on state land or the ability of the state to lease state land to private interests) has a greater impact on hunting than the sort of gun control that stands a chance of passage in the current political climate (e.g. magazine capacity limits, background checks, or even semi-auto bans).

 

[Mike21]

That is total nonsequitur.


You are mis-representing your opinion as fact, and I personally disagree with your opinion. It is very easy to contrive a variety of scenarios where the transfer of state lands (e.g. inability to camp on state land or the ability of the state to lease state land to private interests) has a greater impact on hunting than the sort of gun control that stands a chance of passage in the current political climate (e.g. magazine capacity limits, background checks, or even semi-auto bans).

As stated in the subject of this original post, anti gun laws have already been passed, especially where liberals run the house, senate an d governor. So you can disagree with the facts but facts are a very stubborn thing. Land transfer has not passed and has no chance of passing federally. So other than being a rally cry for enviro enabling hipster hunters this is a non issue.

I stand by my original post "People (many on this forum) try to tip toe on "both sides of the political isle" when expressing opinions but the facts don't lie. If you vote for liberal pols then you are doing so at the expense of freedom to hunt and own firearms."

 

[Beastmode]

The crazy thing is most of the newer gun control laws in California were signed by a "conservative" governor. I think gun control is a real issue, but public lands diminishing is a real problem as well. Sale/transfer of public lands could be a huge amount of money in the government's pocket. Especially when we are in such a huge deficit and both parties are going to want to make a huge show in the upcoming election year to show they can do something about it.

 

[airlocksniffer]

I stand by my original post "People (many on this forum) try to tip toe on "both sides of the political isle" when expressing opinions but the facts don't lie. If you vote for liberal pols then you are doing so at the expense of freedom to hunt and own firearms."

Most people in this country are moderate and don't accept either political party 100%. But if it comes down to what affects my freedom to hunt and own firearms, republicans talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Is lead the only thing ammunition can be made from? No. Does private ownership of formerly-public lands limit my ability to drive 20 minutes from my house and potentially shoot an elk? You bet.

Not sure of other states but Montana does a pretty fine job of game management. The amount of public land in this state (and many across the west) is vast and expecting the state to manage that the same way the federal government does is not realistic. Montana has done pretty well financially during the great recession (with 2 democratic governors) but other states are deeply in the red. If it came to that point with a state in debt and owning this formerly-federal land, it will get sold and you will get locked out unless you can pay.

Yeah, many folks "tip toe on both sides of the political isle". That's logical and to take either party platform hook, line and sinker isn't.

 

[MattB]

So you can disagree with the facts but facts are a very stubborn thing.

Facts are facts, opinions are facts - I see how it is. I'll continue to tip toe on both sides of the political isle...rather than tripping face first into either.

 

[DaveC]

...enviro enabling hipster hunters..

Taking this as a personal slogan. Hope you don't mind.

 

[Mike21]

"So you can disagree with the facts but facts are a very stubborn thing. Land transfer has not passed and has no chance of passing federally. So other than being a rally cry for enviro enabling hipster hunters this is a non issue. "

Would Osama sign a state take over of fed land?

Would he sign a federal gun control bill?

Which is the current threat to hunting?

Remember the subject of the thread ?

 

[DaveC]

Name me one state that has strict gun laws and good wilderness/backcountry hunting? How is hunt opportunity in Cali? Name the three best states for back country hunting, montana, Idaho, Wyoming is a pretty good start. Very un restrictive gun laws as well.

Serious question for Cali hunters; does the Sierra have good hunting opportunities? Aside from SEKI cramping your style, and having to play the points game for the X zones, seems it'd be pretty nice.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Would Osama sign a state take over of fed land?

 

[Mike21]

View attachment 25221

Ha ha actually ipad auto correct. No pun intended, but endorsed non the less

 

[Mike21]

Taking this as a personal slogan. Hope you don't mind.

Not at all! Reminds me of something Yogi Berra would say. It rolls off the tongue nicely.

 

[Beastmode]

Serious question for Cali hunters; does the Sierra have good hunting opportunities? Aside from SEKI cramping your style, and having to play the points game for the X zones, seems it'd be pretty nice.

In all reality it depends on your definition of good is. There are definitely some big bucks around but our deer numbers are currently lower than they have ever been. This coupled with the highest numbers of predators ever recorded and a record drought it is definitely not looking the best.

The deer here are definitely earned. You are not going to see multiple shooter bucks every time you head in to the backcountry. Most of the big animals that are killed here are done so on private ground. The pressure even 5 miles back in this state is only getting worse. You can invest all off season scouting and preparing with plans a, b, c.... and end up using plan z. Backcountry hunting is becoming more and more popular and unfortunately there is only so much ground out there. It definitely isn't my first choice for high country hunts but it is definitely a rewarding experience when you do kill a descent buck.

 

[MattB]

Would he (Obama) sign a federal gun control bill?

Obama has a Republican-controlled Congress for the duration of his presidency. Such legislation has not been passed and has no chance of passing federally. Facts are facts.

 

[MattB]

Sitting back and thinking about this, given the composition of our current Congress, there is a greater likelihood during the remainder of his presidency that Obama is presented with a bill to divest federal land to the states than he is to be presented with a federal gun control bill. Facts are facts.