whats the big deal ? welcome to the end run around the 2nd amendment..

first the environmentalists slowly get hunting restricted, then the next question is why do they (hunters) need guns anymore and then the slow and painful process of firearms restrictions..once they chip a little part away from the 2nd amendment, then just like a dam holding back water once a crack starts its un-stoppable and total failure...

Whoa nelly. Mike, I'm a liberal environmentalist who does not eat red meat, but I would strongly oppose banning responsible hunting. I think trophy hunting is gross, but responsible people hunting for food seems quite reasonable to me, even if I choose not to partake. So careful there painting with too wide a brush. Our 2nd Amendment has recently been widened by the Supreme Court and is in no danger from anyone.

Mike,, you are jumping on the bandwagon like all 2nd amendments nuts that omg... we are all out to take your ever loving guns from you... REALLY????? Just because they are changing the name of a department? Just how far do you think anyone would get banning hunting??? Again REALLY??????

Get over yourself and realize the move is more to do with what the department actually DOES as to what activity they are going to support.

An end run around the Second Amendment. If Rush says so, it must be true.

I read the article title and tried to "anticipate" what the controversy (fuss) would be about. I could not figure it out so I read the article. So, the word "game" is being replaced by "wildlife." LOL! I can see how game hunters and gun owners might be concerned due to the (unrealistic) "threat" of gov't control associated with these issues but, C'MON! This response is unwarranted based upon a fear that will never be realized even if such an effort were ever undertaken by the gov't. It's ridiculous to think that way!!! Does anyone, I mean ANYONE honestly think that "our guns" are going to be confiscated? Is anybody stupid enough to try? I'm sure the answer to both is "NO!" And hunting...if the gov't continues down the current path, hunting maybe one of our limited food gathering options...gov't's going to try to stop that...what gov't?

What these people don't see is that the money from hunters licenses help pay cor conservation. Hunting also helps the herds from becoming over populated. Which is more humane, animals starving from over population and lack of food, or thinning the herd? How many of these activists live in the country and have helped reduce animal habitat? How many have hit a deer with their car?

So, trophy hunting outlawed, that would fall within your personal belief system? Wouldnt be a Fish and Game system without hunters, period. Forbid it would fall outside of your personal boundarys.

Hey, California has money to burn. Whats a couple hundred million$ for uniforms, signage, reprinting forms and documents, repainting vehicles etc.? Who said being politically correct doesn't cost anything? Way to go Jerry, nice to see that you have your priorities straight!

The change promotes poaching, just as prohibition promoted alcohol sales/use and marijuana. When some people force other people to do something, the other people respond by doing it, just to spite some people. And there won't be enough people to enforce the changes, which make the changes meaningless.

They should just let the California Highway Patrol take them over. They could be called "FISH and CHIPS"

The whole purpose of the dept of fish and game was just that! Regulate the hunting of game animals and the taking of fish etc. They were responsible for the licensing and issuing tags for fish and game animals, and that all rules and regulations pertaining to take were followed, that's it! They were financed through the sale of licenses and tags. They kept records of how many deer were taken and the sizes thereof. They also became a law enforcement agency responsible for catching poachers and others vio;ating game regulations. They set the regulations as to what size bullets are to be use for hunting which animals and to make sure baiting wasn't done to lure animals in. The stopping of the use of dogs for hunting wild cats and bears was stupid. The dog was the best way to tree aor track an animal especially if it was wounded. As for laws pertaining to guns in Calif, there already is limitations in that state which are not in other states.Experience shows what happens in Calif, one thing leads to another. Amazing how so many that scream for tolorance are the least like to show it!

$18 billion in the hole and counting, and CA spends time and money on stupidity like this. No wonder their population is bailing out like rats off a sinking ship. Arizona, Texas and Oklahoma are taking high tech and manufacturing companies form CA as fast as they can pack and move out. In another couple years, Mexico can reclaim the state and no one will miss it.

The biggest issue I see with environmentalism is how people anthropomorphize nature (particularly cute/cool, though not necessarily ecologically important animals) and view it as some happy, utopian balance only recently ruined by evil man, rather than the indifferent, ever-changing system it is. Regardless if your try to protect the environment to preserve resources (that includes animals) or because it’s morally wrong to cause a species to go extinct, you simply cannot expect human emotions to apply nature.

I’m not saying it’s okay to be needlessly cruel or that you shouldn’t respect wildlife or that you shouldn’t appreciate the natural world, but if an invasive toad or fox is killing all the native species, no amount of love will repress its instincts. If the developments of civilizations have disrupted natural migrations, you can’t expect some magical system to keep animals from overgrazing a region till they have no food and a
good chunk of them starve to death. Far too often I see comments from people who try to assert human emotions into natural concepts (ever see a comment on online videos showing wild animals hunting/fighting and someone gets ticked that the person recording it does nothing to stop it, regardless of how negative an impact interference would be. It’s not like as if carnivores can choose to go
vegan). Not to mention, as said before, it’s usually not so much people care about ecology but rather they care about cute/cool animals, never mind less impressive but more important organisms or the (oftentimes more important) non-living aspects of an ecosystem.

It’s actually gotten to a point that in the western world people value the lives of animals over people. A good example being rural people in third world countries that do not share the same values of nature, yet regardless of how much war, poverty and hunger the people are suffering, westerners are too quick to judge their uncaring of nature or wild animals. It’s not just in far off lands, I remember back when a
victim of a animal attack was something of sorrow, now it’s somehow always the victims own fault regardless of where it occurred (wild area or urban) or if the person did everything they could (fancy it how people get mad over victim blaming, but then think it’s okay to do over something else).

In a nutshell, it’s important to conserve nature and we really should respect it, but we cannot expect our emotions to apply to it.

Anyway, big rant aside, my view of this can be summed up to its pointless.

What's the big deal?....Why change the name if it's no "big deal".

So tell us all tstucker0958 what proud state are you from? I for one would miss my STATE. I have no plans on moving out of CA. I Fish am not afraid the BIG OL BAD Government is going to take away my guns. Hell G.W.Bush was better for that attempt with the Patriot Act.

And the Deficit is actually 16billion so don't try and inflate it for talking points. Remember a Republican Governor attempted to FIX things and ruined it even more. Thanks Arnold. But trust me I dislike Moonbeam as well he is another idiot. I did not vote for.

Please move out if you hate my state so much. Or stay out and don't even visit.

Sarcasticus1 # 1.7 rightfully asks,

I mean ANYONE honestly think that "our guns" are going to be confiscated?

When changing the word "Game" to "Wildlife" can stir up this much passion, then we've got way too much time on our hands, and life must be pretty cushy.

Skirting the second Amendment? Increased poaching? Anti-hunter and end of hunting license revenue?

Jeez, I surely hope the earth doesn't stop spinning. Wup! Did I just feel a little jerk?

got to love corgis

Don't be a queer. Just look at history. Mike is right. Slow, eroding of rights. Why do you think so many people have purchased so many firearms recently. It's because of your government and its leader. Yep. Do you know what your hero said recently about the murder in Libya of our ambassador and two Marines? Oblama said, "it's all because of the 1st Ammendment!! See, it's that darn Freedom of Speech." this is apparently where we are headed. I cannot give my opinion any more I guess because I'll offend someone!?? We're doing it now, and I'm glad to call you my fellow American, though we disagree, even vehemently. Pay close attention. Mike is right

Think about that, if you Lib nuts have any brains. Now it's against the law to "slander the prophet muhammed"??? R U out of your minds!!!(those who allow such nonsense)

mike-2598123

first the environmentalists slowly get hunting restricted...

Ah, so that's what you're really upset about, having your "right" to kill as many and whatever animals whenever and however you want taken away. It really has very little to do with the 2nd Amendment.

What is in a name? Everything, the government does not do anything without a reason. Take my guns, there are other ways for that, regulate hunting and fishing out of existence to save the world, absolutely and that is what they are up to, save California wildlife with regulations and new laws. HA HA HA, when are the lefties really going to leave it up to nature, man is dominant, live with it.

I will still kill, capture, and trap wildlife in accordance with the law.

They should be careful about infiringing on those rights.

Though I find the change pointless, I must admit, people are taking the change a little too seriously.

Right, what's in a name? In Fla it's called the F.W.C (Fish and Wildlife Commission) and there's no push to ban hunting. In Ga. it's the D.N.R (Department of Natural Resources) and there's no move to ban hunting. I might almost buy into the attempt to totally ban hunting argument, and I say might, only because Ca. is overrun with pansies. But to the Ca. government hunting is a source of what?...........All together now....R E V E N U E ....... and they won't give that up as Ca. needs all the revenue it can get.

Johnny N

Your statement that someone should take the anti-hunter out for a walk in the woods just shows why the name was changed to Fish and Wildlife...You obviously think it is ok to shoot anything you want to.

NY Vet

Your bigotry and hate eliminates you from having any credence in what you say. Scary that you (going by your name) were in the Armed Forces and supposed to have fought to protect people of all races and creeds who are citizens of the US. Bet you didn't know how many gays fought side by side with you silently with more bravery than you ever did. You try to show how big and bad you are by putting others down...That's what cowards do.

Rory Weber 210

Please don't move here to AZ. We don't need more people destroying our wildlife.

The California Department of Fish and Game has been irrelevent for years. Take a look at the big game herds in neighboring states and you are forced to admit the utter failure of CDFG. Where the respective agencies of other states actually manage game, the nanny state of California chooses to ignore the wildlife and seeks instead to manage people.

Justme123: You see, you sound like a typical uninformed Liberal and American in the dark on how politics are played. As a quoted and self proclaimed " liberal enviormentalist", you of all people should know that as a person such as yourself who " doesn't eat red meat" is forced without a choice to eat food grown in America that is all under the control of Monsanto's GMO. How is that possible?? because they had a master plan and pleanty of money to patent almost every known type of seed to exsit. Only some people were smart enough to keep their patents and rights away from these types of control freaks, such as William Knott (as in Knotts Berry Farm AKA: The Boisenberry farm). What you fail to mention is whether on not you actually live in California. If you do, then you would understand how the state isn't a leader of anything, they just like stripping the people of the state of their freedoms. No state in the Union has more laws than California. Then again, no state in the union has a debt as big as California due to a gross oversize of government and wasteful spending problem. I'm sure we've all heard the saying," If it's not broke, don't fix it", there was no need to change the name if there wasn't some master plan in the works for someone's hidden agenda. So mike is partly right. They start with the peoples liberty and as long as your a dumb sheep and go along with it, they can keep taking more and more until you have no voice in the matter. So wake up!

Jerseyshoremarie: don't worry about Mr. Weber comming to Arizona to destroy the wildlife, the Illegals are doing a better job of destroying your state.

Don't get to carried away. In Virgina they changed the name from game warden to conservation officer. Sounds stupid but they did.

NC Vet

"@Jerseywhore --- Opinions vary biotch"

Hope you're ready to be banned from newvine. What is it with these childish, foul mouthed little boys who can't debate the issues without threatening and name calling.

I can't believe these "men" have got their panties in such a wad over a simple name change, there are a lot of states the have "departments of Fish and Wildlife" that have not banned hunting. It's like your manhood feels threatened whenever you think someone might take your assualt rifles away from you or tells you that you can't kill whatever you want whenever you want to. Guns are for girls anyway, real men don't need guns to protect themselves and real men do kill defenseless animals for sport.

Whatever you call them, they are one of the biggest drains on society there is. Millions and millions of dollars for non-essential government employees eating out of the public trough. The worst thing they ever did is let these people have guns and the power ask for more, more, more.

Do you know the scientific way they count pheasants or grouse? They sit on a hill and listen for cackles, then use some formula for the total. Ask a farmer or rancher( the ones who feed the wildlife) he knows the count way better.

I don't have a problem with hunters who use the meat and hunt only what they will use. It's the trophy hunters who hack off the heads and hoofs to hang on their walls and leave the meat to rot. The "sports men" who shoot at anything that moves with no regard to if it's a dog or cat, horse or cow. Their answer if caught is I made an error. Don't say it doesn't happen because I've seen it. Anything that will put these yahoos out of our woods is a plus.

In California it's against the law to leave the meat to rot. That doesn't mean it has never been done by an unethical hunter, but if a person gets caught they get in trouble. I agree, Lady Cat, that people should only take what they are going to eat.

This is nothing but a waste of money good job Douche Bag Brown.

Take that bullet train and Prop 30 and shove it up your ass 8)

This trying to ban hunting and fishing reminds me of a lyric in a Doors song: They are going to destroy, all our casual joys.

I'm a life long fisherman and a tree hugger, too.

I'm against hunting with dogs, and always have been, but Hunting and fishing groups play an important part in protecting natural resources.

Long before environmentalism became fashionable hunting groups like Ducks Unlimited were launching conservation campaigns and putting up significant money to preserve marshes and wetlands.

I also remember back in the early 1960's seeing pubic service commercials on TV paid for by fishing groups warning people about the dangers of water pollution.

There was no environmental movement back then, fishing and hunting groups were the only ones working to protect habitat.

Average people hunting and fishing is a uniquely american tradition because, In Europe all of the land was owned by the aristocracy. In the U.S., however there were huge areas of public land hence fishing and hunting became very popular.

As long as it's well regulated so species can't be negatively impacted I'm OK with hunting and enjoy fishing a lot.

In a time when hunting is not necessary to live, to eat, one has to contemplate the psychology of someone who enjoys killing anything. As Immanual Kant said "You can judge the character of a man by how he treats animals." Sadly, hunters aren't usually capable of understanding or even contemplating their own psychology.

Guest:

As Immanual Kant said "You can judge the character of a man by how he treats animals."

Sadly, hunters aren't usually capable of understanding or even contemplating their own psychology.

Thus, the reason so many are fearful of losing their license to kill. Other worldly observers must find mankind very flawed and sick.

why dont all the people raising cane about this issue try to piss and moan over something that really matters like well pretty much anything i mean hell its just a name change get a life and stop trying to change @!$%# around that don't matter i bet if half of the people that are posting here would help someone in there community the USA wouldn't be in the state its in now freaking retards

End-arounds don't work these days - linebackers and DB's are too fast now. Try a statue of liberty play.

To all 2nd Amendment fanatics:

Let me start by saying that I was raised on guns, in a military household. I think that everyone should have the capability to defend themselves and to provide for themselves and their family. Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment is seriously outdated. When it was written, the best guns in the world were muskets. The only artillery was single shot cannon. In those days, a well trained civilian militia could contend with any sanctioned military force. Now, we have tanks, helicopters, jets, bombers, scud missiles, drones, nukes - armaments that civilians have no access to. Civilians, in this country at least, are not capable of contending with our military. I still think that civilians having guns for hunting and home defense is a good idea, but the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is no longer completely valid.

J_P_PatchesPal_1:

End-arounds don't work these days - linebackers and DB's are too fast now. Try a statue of liberty play.

Lol. Touche.

"The threat to hunting comes from extreme groups ... You can’t just shut your eyes and ignore the fact that 99 percent of Californians don’t hunt and then just decide that their values are negligible."

What if we change a few words?

"The threat to same sex marriages comes from extreme groups ... You can’t just shut your eyes and ignore the fact that 99 percent of Californians don’t want to marry a same sex partner and then just decide that their values are negligible."

Se how bigoted the original statement is?

BTW: If you eat, you hunt. You just hunt by proxy. Even if you are a Vegetarian you hunt by proxy to protect the crops.

Hunting also helps the herds from becoming over populated.

Nature does that without the help of hunters quite well thank you and your statement is BS. I hunted back when we hunted to eat and even then we had little or no effect on the size of the herds.

Btw when do you people ever hunt? Most of you are in different forums promoting the misuse of what the second amendment says instead of out killing bambi for sport...

Dwight posted this crap:

Yep. Do you know what your hero said recently about the murder in Libya of our ambassador and two Marines? Oblama said, "it's all because of the 1st Ammendment!! See, it's that darn Freedom of Speech." this is apparently where we are headed. I cannot give my opinion any more I guess because I'll offend someone!??

Thats a lie. All Obama said was the release of the tape was protected by the first amendment. He never once tied the deaths to it. This is right wing twist and post at its worst and for the life of me I do not know which is worse the people who send this stuff out or the idiots that post it without taking the time to check it if it suits their limited opinions. Here is a link if i can to the speech.

www.firstamendmentcenter.org/obama-to-u-n-%E2%80%98no-speech-justifies-mindless-violence%E2%80%99

Put the http:// in front of the above

The name "game" has been gamey for sometime. It is California "Wild Life" is more fitting as its wild citizens live on the wild side.

Deb you said other worldly viewers would look and wonder about man. They might think that dogs are in charge because people follow them around and pick up their poop. If the observer was you, who would you think is in charge.

This does not impact the second amendment in any way. Not all wildlife is game. That's a fact so what's the bug deal? People are stupid and should read the Constitution more carefully. Where does it mention game or wildlife? Slow erosion of rights. That's getting it twisted to say the least.

Rabbit Raiser post #1.44

This is an invalid comparison, and your logic is flawed from the get go.

The first statement (regarding hunting) assumes THREE groups, 2 who are human and (ostensibly) have dominant control over the third (animals). Human groups with opposite sides of the same issue regarding a third (non-human) group, deserve to be heard and accommodated as fairly and reasonably as possible, with appropriate diligence and care paid to the third (animal) group.

The second (regarding same sex marriage) assumes only TWO groups, both human, where (ostensibly) one does not or SHOULD NOT have dominant control over the other. Human groups with opposite sides of the same issue regarding THEMSELVES deserve to be heard and accommodated as fairly and reasonably as possible with appropriate diligence and care for EACH OTHER.

The statements are nothing alike, and your comparison shows a short-sighted "gotcha" mentality that is better reserved for situations where a sensationalistic persona is appreciated.

Oh, yes, ban hunting, because it's sooooo less humane to hunt for animals that are free-roaming, have a natural reticence toward humans and can smell and hear us coming long before we can see where they are, which gives them an excellent advantage over us and a much better chance for survival.

Instead, it's far more acceptable to kill animals that are raised their entire lives for slaughter, are taught to trust humans as a result of growing up around and being fed by us, and are finally led into pens where they can't move or otherwise get away to save themselves before being shot in the head.

While I truly appreciate the Humane Society's original mission to help save domesticated animals from neglect, abuse and/or abandonment, if they're now saying that hunting is so inhumane as to be outright opposed to it, I'm afraid they're losing sight of the one thing that sets them apart from PETA--common sense moderation. They're not an extremist group. Or, at least, they didn't used to be.

Hilarious, absolutely hilarious. Like a name change is going to get Congress to say - OK kiddies, no more guns - absolutely hilarious.

But, to me, what is funnier are the big bad hunters who have to use DOGS to go hunting - ar ar ar ar ar - you ain't much of a hunter bubba. As a Native American, I "try" to hunt using the game as part of the hunt through, for lack of a better term, empathising (getting to work with it) during the hunt - in other words, using SKILL to hunt. Never come home without my family's meal. Know your game - work with your game - your game will go home with you.

Giantego,

"Nature does that without the help of hunters quite well thank you and your statement is BS. "I hunted back when we hunted to eat and even then we had little or no effect on the size of the herds."

I'd have to disagree with this statement and nature does, for the most part, take care of itself.

I agree that back in the day, hunting did not have a big effect on the herds, but in today's world, where there is more and more land being developed for housing, businesses etc, and less land for the animals, the concentrations of the herds in urban areas have increased and hunting does thin the herds to a manangble number.

As for the rest of your comment, I agree, but I do not believe the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights are living documents and they should remain as is. I was also raised with weapons, raised in a military family, served in the military and hunt.

@deprogrammer --- Banned from MSNBC...Now that would be an honor...LMAO! After watching Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow last night and Morning Joe today it appears Obama has been banned from MSNBC also. The sky is falling...the sky is falling.

What a waste of our money!

Humans are meat-eaters, have been since the beginning of time, deal with it!

Changing the name is only a tactic to create some jobs by having all the uniforms changed. The California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife will say that it will cost x number of dollars to comply and raise fee's and lisences to cover the cost. The real problem is that those people who work for the Department are the ones who have to pay for their uniforms and not the Department, thus the Department collects big money for free and everyone else who works for or uses the Department are nickeled and dimed once more.

This is not about taking guns away from those who hunt, it is not about taking fishing poles away or saying one cannot use public lands.... It is about saying that only those who can afford it may and those who cannot ..... oh well!

Some of you people are ridiculous. This is NOT a ploy to take away your guns. It is simply a name change that includes all wildlife (including game species). There are few states left that have the word "game" in the name of this department, so it isn't some crazy libbie California idea.

This is no "end run on the second ammendment". This is no push to stop hunting. And the money spent on reprinting everything will likely go to California companies - govt spending with local businesses is fine by me.

L.J. Rhodes:

You, and many others, don't seem to be able to make the connection as to why people are opposed to hunting.

Every living thing will eventually die, whether for food, by disease or accident; but there is something psychologically wrong and wires crossed in the human brain of those who get a thrill out of ending a life and killing.

LJ Rhodes,

It wasn't that long ago that humans were hunter/gatherers. Evolution hasn't gotten around to removing hunter from the human brain. Untill it does, getting a thrill out of hunting will remain a part of nature.

It amazes me that some folks don't accept that we humans are part of the natural life on this planet.

We are just as much a part of nature as is a tree or a frog.

I just can't believe you people. Sick.

It wasn't that long ago that humans were hunter/gatherers. Evolution hasn't gotten around to removing hunter from the human brain. Untill it does, getting a thrill out of hunting will remain a part of nature.

Killing other humans has also been ingrained in the human brain, going all the way back to Cain and Abel. Do you find humans killing other humans excusable and acceptable just because we haven't evolved it from our brains?

Deb you said other worldly viewers would look and wonder about man. They might think that dogs are in charge because people follow them around and pick up their poop. If the observer was you, who would you think is in charge.

As an outside observer, I would simply view it as people picking up their dogs poop.

My husband and I hunt and fish, only what we will eat. Since I am an omnivore, I would rather do that than buy meat that came from an animal that was raised in inhumane conditions and stuffed full of antibiotics due to the crowded and dirty conditions. My husband and I appreciate and have adopted the Native American tradition of saying "forgive me, for I must feed my family." We as a society have lost respect for the species that feed us! In part, that is because so many of us are far removed from the actual reality of where our meat comes from. And so, because it is out of sight, these abuses in factory farms happen. I would rather be the predator who's prey enjoyed it's life before the predator took it, than be the predator who by proxy killed an animal who had a miserable life before the predator took it. And I think that pinecenega made a good point about us humans being not so far removed from our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Yes, I enjoy the hunt and having provided for my family. But I also respect the species that feeds me. And I do NOT enjoy the actual kill, but rather the satisfaction of having provided sustenance for those I love. Case in point as regards enjoying the process of hunting/fishing rather than just to kill something--my husband and I each caught one marlin in the Sea of Cortez several years ago. Although we kept all the tuna, bottom fish, and El Dorado we caught, we tagged and released the marlin, because there are so few left in the ocean of them--only 10% of what there were in the 1950's. And we thoroughly enjoyed releasing them! The thought of scientists being able to study them and help increase their species was as exciting as the catch!

Lisa:

Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of inhumane farming of animals occurring, and fortunately, there are now companies who provide food using more humane and healthier practices.

"Our intentions may be very good, but, because the intelligence is limited, the action may turn out to be a mistake - a mistake, but not necessarily a sin, for sin comes out of a wrong intention."

E. Stanley Jones

Out of all the things the state of California needs, this is absolutely not one of them. More tax (or borrowed) money spent on nonsense.

Debi--yes! And I'm glad for that! Once in a while, I buy grass fed buffalo hamburger at Albertsons, and range free chicken from Trader Joes. I also have 6 hens at home for fresh eggs--and the chickens are SSOOOO funny--and get to lead a happy life! In addition to eating their Purina Layina, they get dandelions, purslane, and I made a 'contraption'--kinda like a chicken tractor that is very mobile so they get to peck at bugs, weeds, grass, etc. Their permanent home is a "chicken Chalet" my husband and I built for them attached to a dog run that has a tarp over the top of it. I did a lot of research on the internet before getting them as chicks about a year and a half ago. And their poop is good fertilizer:) Wow--I got off on a chicken tangent! But I love talking about my hens--Dina, Star, Surprise (they are Barred Plymouth Rocks), and Mae West, Tina Turner, and Queen Amaru (they are Amarucanas--and named after strong, intelligent, independent women)

Guest245677

"In a time when hunting is not necessary to live, to eat, one has to contemplate the psychology of someone who enjoys killing anything."

So somehow you're a better person because you have someone do the killing for you. Should gardening now be illegal because you can buy your veggies at the store as well?

erictheredherring:

So somehow you're a better person because you have someone do the killing for you.

Reading comprehension must be at an all time low in this country. Didn't you read the word "enjoys"? That's the difference, and it's a huge difference.

@Pedestrian-in-SF --- The new title clearly addresses all creatures, especially all those peacock colored two legged freaks of nature wandering around the public venues in SF. No wonder fuggin Kalifornia is doomed for financial disaster.

Rory - Buh Bye and good riddance. Take your guns with you.

Time to tax all wildilfe watchin folks, hunters are tired of carrying the burden for all of you.

Bye rory,won't miss ya.

Anyone who would voluntarily live in the land of Jan Brewer probably deserves to be there.

NC Vet, your breeding or should i say your inbreeding is showing!

Look how many gays it takes to try and pick a fight with a Vet...lmao...California is fk'd.

yep most of those nelly fags could probably kick his fat flabby ass.

Do you know why CA is full of gays and NY is full of lawyers? CA got first pick.

A lot of states already call it "Wildlife", even in the deep South. If you have never been on an early season dove hunt and seen one of the belles "hunting" in a shirt with a bare midriff and cutoff jeans so short that the pockets are well below the jean bottoms, then you don't know "wildlife". Other than an outrageous expense for changing the name I don't see a major problem.

Jack-1962499

Hilarious! I have noticed that is also a popular outfit for fishing, watching football, and NASCAR. The women in the South definitely like to work it.

Department of Fish and Gaming of California? D.F.A.G. in Ca? Hmmmm

What is sad about this is that the State of California is actually spending time and money on this. Don't they have anything better to do like STOP spending time and money and stupid things??

Girl Kryptonite: You betcha! And don't think we are not appreciative!

I can understand why hunter and fishermen would be upset. They pay for the whole thing. How many butterfly permits and bird watching permits do the sell? Hunters and fisherman pay for all the wildlife not your tax dollars. The article fails to mention that. I think they need to charge anyone that goes out and takes a picture of any wild life that is funded by the hunters and fishermen. I mean fair is fair right? Or is it now that people want the benefits that others pay for with out having to pay for them. Sound familiar? Watch what happens when hunters and fishermen quit buying permits the whole wild life program in America would collapse.

More money is generated by hunters and fishermen than all professional sports combined. So is everyone ready to pay their fair share? Is $200.00 a year sound about right to photograph birds? Yes!

Keck

Is that the most intelligent thing you can come up with? Some of you people are just so sad.

You came up wth nothing, and you are talking? Talk about sad.

What a bunch of immature losers on here! You hunters always act this way online. I'd hate to see how you act in person! Hunting should be illegal in all 50 states. There you go, type away with your immature replies to that.

keck...

sounds like the star of a donkey show... and I don't mean the donkey.

@jerseyshoremarie,

You are opposing a minority group? You are a bigot. And if you eat, you are a hypocrite as well, since if you eat, you hunt. You just hunt by proxy.

How about the people that hunt to EAT?? To feed their families? Some people can't afford the overpriced, feel good touchy feely Homeopathic, or any other PC hyperbole food for their families. Not EVERYONE lives in the big bad city where everything is a step away (and that you pay a pretty penny for). Some actually, in this day and age, LIVE OFF THE LAND. These are people with real jobs, and homes and such, but prefer NATURAL food that they HARVEST.. No, they're not farmers, but teachers and preachers, soda jerks and regular Joes. You hatin on them too?

Rabbit Raiser:

You are opposing a minority group? You are a bigot. And if you eat, you are a hypocrite as well, since if you eat, you hunt. You just hunt by proxy.

There is a huge difference between humanely eating meat for survival and unnecessarily killing for the thrill.

One is out of necessity to survive; while the other is due to a psychological sickness. There's not much difference between the thrill killing of an animal as opposed to thrill killing a human. They're both living, breathing entities.

DebbieNC

What a bunch of immature losers on here! You hunters always act this way online. I'd hate to see how you act in person! Hunting should be illegal in all 50 states. There you go, type away with your immature replies to that.

Debbie

We hunters are the one that has brought many species back from the brinks of uncontrolled harvesting. It is our dollars that pay for the land officers and management of most wild life. We do it by buying a license. If hunting was illegal in all 50 states we would not have healthy populations and disease would be rampant. Now you do not want that do you? Obviously you are not familiar with biology or management. With out hunters you could not enjoy the wildlife that you do as we also pay for the protection of all species.

Do not think the average hunter is a Bubba as that is far from the truth most are educated and working. Hunting is expensive. We pay over $14,000 a year on just my land leases alone, This does not even include the American made products we use. ( clothes/4 wheelers/ hunting stands/ammo and such. We help drive the economy and contribute much to society. We feed the hungry and fill up food banks. So I ask that you know a little bit about what you are talking about before you make a blanket statement . We are not defined by the media we are the America that you enjoy.

Please Burning Brightly, don't try and justify your killing fetishes with money derived from the purchase of your costumes and lament how hunters have "brought many species back from the brinks of uncontrolled harvesting". Wildlife doesn't need your money from license fees to kill in order to survive.

If left alone, nature can take care of herself much better than any human intervention.

Hunters helping wildlife live is an oxymoron and a myth.

Hi Debi--I must disagree with you on a few things here. Ducks Unlimited has greatly helped even protected species because of their wetlands preservation. And Ducks Unlimited respects the species that feed them as well, working to preserve the waterfowl species that they do hunt. I wish that nature could take care of herself, but there are SSOOOO many humans--billions of us now--and so much wild lands are now being exploited for coal, natural gas, oil, and other resources that humans MUST step in and help protect the environment or both humans AND wildlife will pay a price none of us are equipped to pay.

you make a good point nb820-001. that is a far more disturbing event and a serious infringement on that gentleman's right to the pursuit of happiness. enviromentalists have a flawed perspective on nature and just exactly what it comprises, either humans are part of nature or else we are all aliens. either way i find that view to be just as looney as thinking the gov't would be dumb enough to take away the second amendment.

The point of the outrage by people who wanted Richards out (thank God it worked) was because he is supposed to respect all wildlife, whether it is considered a legal species to hunt or not. He specifically went to another state on an organized hunt to search out a specific species already considered endangered in his own state. If he was hunting for food, which so many of hunters use as an excuse to act out their love of the thrill of the kill, that would be one thing, but there are plenty of things to hunt in CA. Seriously; how many of you eat mountain lions? The fact that he was posing with that big grin on his face holding the dead animal was the typical actions of a trophy hunter, and the message in the picture was loud and clear..."Ha Ha; I got to shoot one and you can't". What a disgrace for Californians...That's why he was gotten rid of.

Jerseyshoremarie: So if your so gunghoe to protect "ALL" game, does that mean you believe that only certain animals should be killed? Example: A California brown bear kills a child, but the bears who are over populated now are protected by law, to bad for the victim? or reduce the number of bears to control the population and increase public safety? This would also apply to domestic animals, since this government push was by the humane society. Lets use dogs. A Pitbul kills a human or another animal, do you put it down because it was only doing what it's instincts told it to do?

@jerseyshore what bothers me in your comment is the fact you think that it was justifiable, to take a mans livelyhood, because he is a hunter, they removed him it didnt come down to his job performance, by that logic if your boss didnt like the fact you like posting on here he could fire you, how does that make sense? maybe you like broccoli and it so offends your mayor he takes your house under emminent domain sounds silly but the logic has already been allowed by you so I guess its ok......

Just because it was technically legal doesn't mean it was ethical.

Then why don't you jerk conservative and your teahad governors quit firing public sector UNION employees by the THOUSANDS with all your union busting laws because your asinine conspiracy cooked up crap that all THESE people are moochers and the theives of the taxpayers in the states they live in? You sure don't mins ruining THEIR livelihoods but are bent out of shape over THIS guy and his "hunting rights". Get over it and quit your whining as Issa and his House of traitors are well on THEIR way to what could be firing up to 100,000 USPS workers because they hate THEIR union too. This for is completely unnecessary if that 2006 law forcing the PO to pay those billions of dollars out the PWRBF instead of the Congress paying them BACK the 70 billion they DID overpay into the CSRS like they should have done rather then making the PO give THAT money to the US Treasury was repealed. Nope, ROB the PO outright instead and blame it on the Postal Union as "mismanagement and cost overruns".
Whine about your poor ol Senator though. Sucks when it happens to one of YOURS doesn't it? Oh well, liberals got ONE anyway.

It may be time to open a season on these activist, I would buy a tag or two. Recall Brown, CA has Brown Rot

@warren --- And it is winning the race by a landslide!

I don't know, Illinois is coming on strong.

As someone who's a born and raised Californian, Warren, CA isn't in a race to the bottom, it's already there. To get any lower we'd need to start digging deeper. Only 2 more years until I can retire and I already have my retirement home already set to go and it is as far away from CA as I could get.

OK, guys, you're gettin' way ahead of yourselves. If CA hits bottom, we won't much care becaucse the rest of the US will already be over and done with.

California is one of the fastest growing states. California, by itself, is one of the larger economies in the world. CA has resources and diversity: natural, corporate and cultural that only New York could compete with. Only Arizona has a better climate for baseball (Florida's too muggy).

Do people hate CA? Certainly, winners are always hated.

People talk about California. People move to California, Do they talk about your state (except of course, for the jabbering heads yakking about those political swing states, but that's 'cause those swing states are in transition, just trying to catch up)? Are they moving to your state?

We used to say someone picked the country up by Maine and shook it, and everything not nailed down rolled into California. Well, it looks like they still shakin' and rollin' down there.

When I first got to Californai in the 1960's, going hunting was fun and affordable.Over the next 20 years,the areas where you could hunt were severely restricted,the fees and license cost went up drastically and the regulations become cumbersome.Gradually,I shifted to hunting in other adjoining states and Mexico.Did so until recently when I quit hunting(too old).California regulates or forbides everything except smoking pot, driving around illegially without a license and entering and living here as an illegal alien!

Mexifornia is one of the fastest groring states alright! From 1986 to 2006,10 million people moved here.From those 10 million we got 100,000 tax payers.The rest were bottomfeeders like illegals who eat up most of our money through entitlements and education .Th the same time,one medium size company leaves Mexifornia a week becuse of the extreme high cost of doing business.Taxes are the highest in the country,if you include county and city taxes.Utilities are the highest because so many users can't want and given an exemption from paying utilities.Yes ,Mexifornia is on its way, alright,on it's way to the dump!

What mas098 cant blame the blacks for welfare anymore so you have to say illegals are taking up all the resources. Fact whites lead in the nation on welfare rolls. Or maybe your pissed because some illegal is taking jobs. Wrong again those manufacturing jobs have already left the country. And the housing jobs fell when the housing boom bust. But yes White contractors across the nation AMERICAN contractors were hiring illegals at cheaper rates.

But hey lets blame UNIONS that hire legal US citizens and vote Republican so Romney can give out Corporate welfare to his Buddies.

Truth California is the state with the Largest economy in the country. And truthfully I wish we would cut welfare to 6 months for everyone then your done. No more for at least a 5 year period.

it is not any one group of people that's ruining our country. It is us buying all that cheap China CRAP. Lets see an end to welfare and see who gets to work in the fields and who goes to jail then.

as a 5th generation californian, I invite all of you who were not borm here to return whence yee came and write when you have work

Whites do have the lead in population as well in California at 56.7 percent leaving less than 54% to all other races. California is a very diverse and Large state. While my state has always had a Mexican influence

http://www.californios.us/ca/

It hardly is becoming Mexico. Most transplants cant hang out here. We will continue to hunt and fish. Its awesome out here. And a name change only gets the loonies riled up.

As a native Illinoisan I have to concur with what zombywoof7 said.
California and Illinois are probably the two worst states in the country to do business in because of all the rules and regulations.
Also,I don't know which one is more broke.

I agree with ya jammin jimmy. I hunt and I hunt more then the average person. I can care less about the name. I think it's just wasted money when they could put it to better use. But then again things like this are the reason we are in as much dept as we are.

So, what exactly does a Californian "sound" like?

There IS no one "sound." My generation of Californians grew up in the era of Pat Brown (father; son came later); and I've lived in Northern, Central and Southern California over the years. Gave me a good look at, and a better understanding of, my state and its great variety - more than enough room for all people and points of view.

Besides - without "wildlife," how could there be "game?" Think about it...

Besides - without "wildlife," how could there be "game?" Think about it...

Great. But when your state's budget is so far in the hole, why would you spend money you don't have to right now? That's just plain irresponsible. If you are so set on a name change then change the name down the road when you can pay for it.

There are far more important things that desperately needs their attention than the proper name for a department.

It's about like being out of work and wondering where you next meal is coming from but deciding you are sick of owning a blue car and go out and buy the exact same thing in red.

There are far more important things that desperately needs their attention than the proper name for a department.

Yes, like finding those much elusive funds to build a billion dollar railway to nowhere.

@thoughtfulbear --- You sound like a Californian.

Well, NC, I assume you live in North Carolina.

So the name of your agency is the "North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission".

Did you pitch such a fit when NC changed its name?

Blood sport, now that was a good movie.

I'm a Californian. It's a waste of time and money. There litterally is absolutely no point to it. It doesn't change anything that fish and game already does or will do. It's just a name change, that is going to waste money that could really be used in areas of the department that are truly needed.

Better name would be "Department of Babying Sitting Environmentalist and Animal Rights Advocates"

@RealAmericanFirst --- No sir! The agency had that title prior to my moving there in 1970. I was so happy to be out of California the name was of no matter to me. Joy always trumps PC Bullsh-t! And before you ask I DO NOT miss Oakland or Santa Barbara one bit!

There is alot more behind this that the media is not covering. I am not sure why the name change was necessary. FOCUS ON REAL ISSUES!!!

If they want to get technical they should have made it..... FISH, WILDLIFE & MARIJUANA Management. In all reality, the Government would like to keep EVERYONE out of the National Forest. Loggers are few and far between since the spotted owl habitat crap, (thanks humane society! Our Forests look real healthy now!) They are already getting control over the water, because of some type of fish, (with the help of the humane society), which will push the agriculture industry out. They are moving the hounds out (with the help of the humane society). They are bringing the wolves back to California, (with the help of the Humane Society), that'll take out the deer population, well the majority of the wildlife, which will then take out the hunters & "Wildlife" watchers. Whats left??? All the Illegal grow operations, that they can't control now with the help of the hunters and wildlife watchers. You can thank that sad Sarah McLachlan commercial for all this too!

NorCa hits the nail on the head...

From the article, a disturbing annotation:

Earlier the group had been telling supporters that the Humane Society "will attack hunting in California first, taking it one species at a time, until all types of hunting are eliminated — then take their forces to other states."

This is kind of like the rise of the Nazis. They were a bunch of tree huggers too. The only problem with those guys was that they went alot further in their thinking. They decided that they were the only true stewards of the planet and its resources. It boils down to another minority group attempting to dictate the actions of the majority. This trend will not end in California. But will spread like a cancer until these new Nazis have usurped every state in the union. They won't stop with prohibition of hunting wildlife either.

From the article, a disturbing annotation:

Earlier the group had been telling supporters that the Humane Society "will attack hunting in California first, taking it one species at a time, until all types of hunting are eliminated — then take their forces to other states."

What appears even more disturbing are those who want to maintain their self annointed right to kill for the thrill.

Yeah there is a thrill but I have hunted all my life and I am not a poacher. Correct me if I'm wrong but most of the funding for CADFG comes from us, the hunters and fishermen. Maybe if we all boycott for one year and refuse to buy our licenses that might get thier attention. How many deer are killed by cars? do you drive a car? More deer are killed every year by the automobile than by hunters and poachers. Go figure. Banning cars would be better.

Maybe if we all boycott for one year and refuse to buy our licenses that might get thier attention.

Or maybe hunters could make that boycott a permanent thing and end hunting all together.

Yes, we need to exploit all of our natural resources until there are none left, and get rid of the damned EPA so we can dump whatever pollutants we want wherever we want whenever we want to. What are we waiting for? We could make so much MONEY if we could just stop giving a rat's a$$ about the environment our children are going to have to live in.

we wouldn't be the ones making money it would be the politicians and the corps

A-MEN BROTHER ! I second that.

I am born and raised in California and I must say it is soooo bad. I do live away from the big cities and things are more tolerable. The thing is.....you just can't beat the weather.

@outahollister --- You are spot on regarding California weather. I loved it and the Santa Barbara County coast line for 18 years, however all the California political and PC BS and the high taxes make the weather and life on the North Carolina coast seem like paradise.

NC but what about those winters that must suck. If I want snow I drive 40 minutes if I want the Coast I drive 90 minutes. River 5 minutes. And no snow on the ground. And I think New york has us beat on the Bad laws and taxes. California pays in to the Federal Govenrment more taxes than any state merely due to our population.

Here are the top tax states

• New Jersey at 11.8% of income
• New York at 11.7% of income
• Connecticut at 11.1% of income
• Maryland at 10.8% of income
• Hawaii at 10.6% of income

@joeyfromcali --- What winters? I live 3 miles from the Atlantic Ocean and played golf every weekend this past Dec, Jan, Feb and Mar. In regards to snow you've got me beat. I have to drive 4.5 hours to ski. Oh yeah, no Santa Ana winds, forest fires or mud slides here either. California used to be a great State, however, outsiders have screwed up a good thing.

Joey, California doesn't just pay the most to the federal gov't due to its size. It also pays in far, far more than it receives back, subsidizing states such as Alaska, Montana, Alabama, etc. that receive far more than they pay.

And a lot of that is because we're really good at creating new technologies and new millionaires and billionaires in the process. My county alone is producing something like a thousand new millionaires this year.

Youre right, California used to be a great state. It really isn't anymore. And getting worse all the time. This will be one more thing to hate about this state.

If I recall correctly, there is no hunting or even the right to have a firearm in a state park in Calif.

MSpielman:

I know enough about ecology to understand what would happen if hunting was outlawed, and in my experience, most hunters have great understanding and respect for nature.

Apparently not, because nature and wildlife have been in existence a lot longer than mankind and will more than likely be around long after us, without man's intervention.

Hey Mikie, whats that in your mouth? Oh, that's right your from California.

Nice pic "Mike". Are you sure your name's not 'Bob'? Or 'Neal'?

But,Colorado changed the name also, after Colorado was californicated in the 1970's and 1980's.It went from a dark red state to a blue state.Actually,it's mostly red except for the large cities which contain most of the population.The poor rural counties are at the mercy of the cities,politically.I find it funny that most of the environuts and animal rights idiots like PETA live in cities and almost never encounter wildlife but sure in hell want it regulated!

You notice that the liberals that call for tolorance are the least likely to show tolorance!

Robert, isn't it interesting that conservatives don't even try to call for "tolerance"?

thats because conservatives dont lie themselves into political correctness ...we realize tolerance is a pc buzzword that ultimately means tolerate my belief while I am intolerant of yours ...most conservatives just arent that dishonest thats why we dont call for tolerance.

FOS as a Christmas goose.

mas098

"But,Colorado changed the name also, after Colorado was californicated in the 1970's and 1980's.It went from a dark red state to a blue state.Actually,it's mostly red except for the large cities which contain most of the population.The poor rural counties are at the mercy of the cities,politically.I find it funny that most of the environuts and animal rights idiots like PETA live in cities and almost never encounter wildlife but sure in hell want it regulated!"

Those "poor rural counties" are where most of the money is in Colorado.

A ha ha ha - good one

If it's just a word then why change it?

Yeah, Mike.... a real good one, huh? If the argument was actually over a mere word change, then JPR would have a point, but sadly it is not. This change has greater implications for the future. Give the libs in California an inch and they will try to take a mile. You can't tell me that the Humane Society didn't play a role in this and that a major push won't be made to ban hunting in the near future.

Hunters may kill, but hunting does a lot of good for the overall animal population. When deer become overpopulated, they end up suffering from malnourishment, disease, and they present a greater risk to drivers on the road. Also, the predator population in those areas begins to grow out of control, again having detrimental effects on animal populations and possibly humans.

Bet the euthanasia of the bears in Montana today just made you ecstatic. Especially the cubs. What were they saved from? Sure wasn't humans.

Yea....not to mention there would be nothing for people to complain about. Hell, what am I thinking? They'll find something else to get their panties in a bunch over.

Cabelas newest game.

You people just don't get how the ACLU, NBC, MSNBC and the liberal left work. They chip away a little at a time on a number of items like the Right to Bear Arms and marriage etc. until the people have lost rights without realizing it. They attacked Christmas a little at a time and look what has happened, it is no longer a Christmas tree it's a holiday tree. Ask anyone if the words seperation of church and state are in the constitution and they would say yes, but that is not true.

Wise up america the liberal left is in the midst of an all out attack to write a new constitution. One SCJ said if they had to create a new constitution they woud use South Africa's as a model. South Africa, are youy kidding me? The majority of people there live in poverty and shacks and that is what we are headed for.

tuffy, ya gotta admire the liberals small thinking, eh? The conservatives are a lot smarter, they just rip huge chunks out at a time, right in plain view! I guess the liberals just aren't as greedy. LOL

If you take into consideration that it was signed at about the same time as an anti-gun bill banning the carry of long guns, it doesn't take too much of an imagination to see a connection, especially since this will most likely lead to an attempt at banning hunting in the state. If hunting is banned, then you can bet that your 2A rights will take a hit as well. Without hunting, will it really be necessary to own any firearms associated with hunting? I know that argument doesn't make sense considering the fact that people could still travel out of state to hunt where it's legal, but when is the last time one of the idiots in charge of California actually made sense?

I'm with you,the dims running this state have ruined it.The legislature sits on their thumbs most of the sessions and do nothing.The last day they were in session,the put forward over 1000 bills for,If its' Brown,flush it, to sign.So far,this demented bastard has signed most.I doubt he has read them or has the capacity ot understand what he has read! We are doomed.36 billion in the hole and all they do is give all Seiu,prison guards and teachers raises.If you need any service from a city,county or state,good luck.

mas098, Where do think Brown got his nick name Moonbeam, he's just like his Dad, but back then his daddy was in a different era and had some money for stuff. This guy has 0 dollars and a vision. With no money and a "vision" how far can he go. Sorry, got to stop now so I can drop some more acid, like looking at everything with rose colored glasses. I'm sure they know what they're doing, damn this acid is good.LOL

The name change is absurd and Governor Brown has signed a few bills lately that are horrible for California.

But if we vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (who is an avid hunter) we can certainly know our hunting heritage will be protected nationwide, even though the liberal Californians will try as they might to end hunting in our great state.

...if California had it's way you couldn't own a gun to go hunting with in the first place. ...

Wait a minute. Californians are still allowed to own guns? All joking aside, this reeks of more anti-gun BS. Next thing you know, hunting will be banned. Once that happens, you can be sure the idiots in charge will make a push to further restrict or ban gun ownership, since I'm sure they will try to rationalize that, without hunting, the ownership of certain firearms is unnecessary. Also, think it's a coincidence that this little bill was signed at roughly the same time as the anti-gun BS banning the carry of long guns? California is well on its way down a slippery slope. Hopefully the voters wake up and realize that before they lose all of their rights. If gun rights go away, I guarantee the rest will follow. An unarmed populace is very easy to bully around. If Hitler was still alive, you could ask him.

They want to make sure people cant take care of themselves. Anything people do to thats smacks of self-sufficientcy is sure to make those in favor of Big government pissed off. Little by little peoples rights are being eroded. And the vast majority of voters dont even realize it.

Well, my domestic partner works for the Humane Society here in Sacramento as a lobbyist, and from what he has told me, the short term goal is to completely eliminate hunting in the state, and the long term plan is to eventually do the same in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and several other key states. This has worked out really well because he also gets funding from organizations that want to control the ownership of firearms.

You have to understand this won't happen overnight, but it will happen.

Your domestic partner should be taken out and shot and EVERYONE that supports his point of view should be exterminated.. Cant wait til Calfornia breaks off in to the ocean and becomes a giant water park sans pc spouting GED toting liberal phuctards

And the political correctness bulldozer claims another victim. Phony replaces substance.

"Eliminating hunting" will work well. As with any action that upsets the balance of nature, animals will die. Let's take Deer: There are more deer in America now than when the pilgrims came. and they are healthier, mostly from sniping farm crops. When the deer population is up, two things happen. Predators thrive...for a while...and deer begin to suffer disease from overcrowding range. Artificial or not, hunting manages wildlife numbers. People are as natural as deer, and have been hunting deer since there have been people and Deer.

But dream on. People will tire of being told how to live and ignore those who "know better" than anyone. Manage your own lives and mind your own business is my suggestion. Hunting will not end. Guns will not be given up. short term, long term, one term president. "This has worked out really well." Where? Last time I checked, most states have a hunting season for each of several classes of game. Two of the CEO's of the American Humane Society have been to prison over the last 15 years, because the "superior" people can't resist abusing donations. "Organizations that want to control ownership of firearms" are out voted by pro-gun organizations for two reasons: There are substantially more gun owners than gun haters, and secondly the constitution assures our right to own and bear arms. Long established and long surviving all challenges.

So...go back to petting your chupacabra-doodle and dream on. not overnight, not at all.

Stop all hunting and you will see many species go extinct, since responsible hunting is what has saved so many of the species, such as the bison.

BTW: If you eat, you hunt. You just hunt by proxy.

I hope you don't own a domestic animal. Let them go free where they belong. It's only natural. oh, gay is not natural so you would'nt understand

I hunt and fish on occasion- but I don't really care what wardens call themselves so long as those freedoms obtain.

Personally, I think "The Wilderness Division" would be a better name than the elongated monicker they use right now...

I would listen to what Reginald has said. It sounds like exactly what is really happening. It doesnt matter that most people dont want it to. It only matters that those who believe they know best for every one are actually succeeding at ruining this country. Little by little. Just look at Ca. if you dont believe it. A great big beautiful state being systematically taken apart and being driven into the ground by the left.

Whether you like it or not-hunting IS a sport,your dumbas* comparisons that animals should be armed is just more animal rights BS.

Hunting and hunters are what have paid for the vast majority of wildlife conservation in this country-and still do pay for it-we also are how fish and game or wildlife -whatever they are called-agencies are funded.

It is due to people like yourself that states are now adding amendments to their constitutions to protect hunting and fishing rights.

If you don't like hunting-fine-don't hunt-do NOT attempt to force your personal beliefs on others.

Hunters do NOT attempt to force our personal beliefs on others-we would prefer that you just stayed in whatever city you reside in,and share your aqnti-hunting opinions with other anti-hunters-stay the he*l out of the areas where we hunt-you do not live in the area-you have no say whatsoever on what we do.