Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Dept. Fish & Game category.

DFG to Siskiyou Supervisors on 1602 Permit

Dept. Fish & Game, Property rights, Ranch life, Siskiyou County

Action Alert

See Board of Supervisor’s Agenda for Tuesday.

Our farmers and ranchers need our support.  Please plan to attend.  Water is property.  This is about property rights.

  10:15 A.M. – BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ REQUESTS

  1. SUPERVISOR GRACE BENNETT

Discussion, direction and possible action re letter of support for SB 1396 – support for Inner Coast Range Conservancy.

  1. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

Presentation and discussion regarding the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program, California Fish & Game Code Section 1602.

  1. 1:30 P.M. – DEPARTMENTAL REQUESTS

  2. SHERIFF

Presentation of the Sheriff’s Office marijuana and major drug update.

No Comments

Hunters fear fading voice at Fish and Game Commission

Dept. Fish & Game, State gov

Lifelong hunter and fisherman Jim Kellogg is hooks and bullets to the core.

He has been an outspoken advocate for anglers and hunters during his 14 years on the Fish and Game Commission, a powerful state board tasked with listing endangered species and setting the hunting and fishing regulations enforced by California’s armed game wardens.

But Kellogg, 72, resigned from his post in December. The frustration became too much, he said, with unfounded environmental concerns continually trumping the history and traditions of hunters and anglers, both on the commission and in the state at large.

“It’s the way the state of California is headed,” said Kellogg, a retired union representative from Discovery Bay. “I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I’m smart enough to see that hunting and fishing is not a top priority with people in today’s world like it was when I grew up.”

Kellogg’s sudden departure has created angst among a camouflage crowd still smarting from recent political losses including a ban on lead hunting ammunition and the listing of wolves under the state Endangered Species Act.

And Kellogg’s seat isn’t the only one Gov. Jerry Brown needs to fill on the five-member board. Commission President Jack Baylis – whom hunters and anglers saw as less friendly – also recently resigned for unrelated reasons. Sonke Mastrup, the commission’s nonvoting, but influential, executive director, stepped down late last year to take a job with the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Brown spokesman Evan Westrup said the vacancies will be filled “with the most qualified, capable and committed individuals from a broad and diverse pool of applicants.”

But some hunters say they’re worried that Brown’s upcoming appointees will help complete the transformation of the commission from an organization that once advocated for sportsmen and women to one that’s philosophically more aligned with animal rights activists.

“Right now, I’m very much concerned … because there is a strong and vocal group out there that is anti-hunting and fishing,” said Gary Flanagan, a hunter and angler from Granite Bay who serves on Placer County’s fish and game advisory board.

Animal rights and environmental activists counter that the board’s mission has evolved over the decades to handle more complex duties than just regulating hunters and anglers, who make up a small percentage of the state’s population. There are about 1.7 million licensed California anglers and 250,000 hunters among the nearly 39 million people living in California.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article58345048.html#emlnl=Morning_Newsletter#storylink=cpy

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
No Comments

CA Senator Ted Gaines’ statement about the Canadian gray wolf on 1-21-16

Dept. Fish & Game, Endangered Species Act, State gov, Wolves

Statement of Senator Ted Gaines Regarding the Draft Gray Wolf Conservation Plan

January 21, 2016

Yreka, California — meeting held by staff from the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.

Read by district staff person Dave Meurer to Senator Gaines

It was a surreal moment on June 4, 2014, when the California Fish and Game Commission said the California Department of Fish and Wildlife was staffed by clueless people who did not know what they were talking about. The Commission used more diplomatic language, but that was the import of the message. My office was represented at the meeting, and thus had a front row seat. For those who were not in Fortuna on the day of that fateful meeting, here is how it went down.
Not merely the staff, but the Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) meticulously outlined why the gray wolf is NOT at risk of extinction due to ANY of the six factors that were under consideration by the Commission. Let me reiterate – the very biologists and specialists the taxpayers employ to advise the Fish and Game Commission said that the gray wolf did not meet a SINGLE factor that could trigger an “endangered” listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). None. Zero. Zip.
Indeed, on February 12, 2013 the United States Fish & Wildlife Service issued a press release with this headline: “Successful Recovery Efforts Prompt Service Proposal to Delist Gray Wolf and Focus ESA Protection on Mexican Wolf.” It is beyond bizarre that even as the federal government was proposing to remove the gray wolf from the federal roster of threatened and endangered species, California concluded that the wolf was in mortal peril.
The fact is that the gray wolf population, as a whole, is thriving. The federal government recognizes the fact that even though the wolf is not widely dispersed in California, this does not mean it is in peril as a species. California should not be fashioning public policy around a few wolves that wander between Oregon and the north state. But the Commission chose to ignore the totality of the US wolf population, which is doing astonishingly well. Using that same logic, the Commission could declare the giraffe endangered, as we never see them frolicking near Etna.
Tragically, the listing decision pretty much blew up the efforts of the ranching and farming communities who had been working constructively with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to craft a management plan. The outrageous decision by the Fish and Game Commission effectively took away almost every tool in the tool box. Under the current decision, ranchers are not even supposed to hop on an ATV and chase the wolf off lest they be guilty of “harassing” the timid carnivore. Local ranchers will be effectively unable to defend their livestock against a predator which is unknown in other parts of the state, leaving them at a significant disadvantage.
In the absence of a CESA listing, the California Wolf Plan would have allowed the Department to protect the wolf while also protecting ranchers from these disproportionate losses. I am thankful that friends at the Pacific Legal Foundation are looking into this flawed decision. I just wish the Fish and Game Commission had not foisted this travesty upon us. And I wish to thank the Department of Fish and Wildlife for at least trying to do the right thing. My hope is that your expert analysis can be the basis for overturning what a dissenting Fish and Game Commissioner deemed “the stupidest decision” the Commission has ever rendered.

Thank you.

No Comments

Siskiyou County residents express worry over wolves

Dept. Fish & Game, Siskiyou County, State gov, Wolves

Record Searchlight

Local News

January 22, 2016

YREKA — Some 300 people showed up at a hearing in Yreka on Thursday night to comment on the state’s draft Gray Wolf Conservation Plan.

Most of those who spoke represented ranching and hunting groups from Siskiyou County who were concerned about the wolves’ return to California.

“I don’t want a wolf kill on my place,” said Ryan Walker, a Siskiyou County rancher, referring to wolves killing cattle. “I need to know where the wolves are.”

The conservation plan attempts to manage the growing number of wolves that have showed up in the state during the past year.

The state Department of Fish and Wildlife plan analyzes where wolves are likely to live in the state, what they will prey on, how they will affect livestock ranchers and humans. The state is also holding conservation plan meetings in Sacramento and Long Beach.

This past summer, fish and wildlife biologists documented the state’s first pack in more than 80 years. DNA analysis of the wolves’s droppings indicate they came from the Imnaha pack in northeast Oregon.

Many of the ranchers who spoke Thursday urged the state to put radio collars on the wolves so they can take steps to protect their cattle.

Patrick Griffin, a wolf consultant for Siskiyou County, said after a calf was killed, ranchers wanted to know where the wolves were so they could prevent another death.

“After the incident on the east side of the county, it would have been nice to know where the wolves have gone,” Griffin said.

The DFW’s Eric Loft told the crowd that getting the wolves collared is a high priority. However, state officials need to locate the wolves before they can collar them.

“We’ve lost track of the Shasta Pack. We don’t know where they are,” said Karen Kovacs, a program manager for the department.

Fish and wildlife officials said wolves probably killed a calf in Siskiyou County in November. Kovacs urged those in the audience to notify the department when they see a wolf or any evidence of one.

Mark Baird, a leader in the State of Jefferson movement, said he suspects the wolves are being trucked into the state, and he and others are looking for evidence.

But Loft denied that and said he, too, would like to see evidence of anyone in the fish and wildlife department trucking in wolves.

Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey said he was concerned about wolves harming people, as well as the economic impact wolves will have on ranchers.

“I’m very, very concerned, and so are my fellow sheriffs, both inside and outside California,” Lopey said.

Rich Klug, with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, said he was concerned about how wolves would affect elk herds. He said there are only about 7,000 elk in Northern California. If wolf packs grow too numerous, they could greatly reduce the numbers of elk, which are wolves’ primary source of food, he said.

About a half-dozen people also spoke in favor of wolves. Karin Vardaman of the California Wolf Center said she was eager to work with ranchers and state officials to prevent cattle deaths.

“We have no desire to see cattle die,” Vardaman said.

“I’m very, very concerned, and so are my fellow sheriff’s, both inside and outside California,” Lopey said.

Rich Klug, with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, said he was concerned about how wolves would affect elk herds. He said there are only about 7,000 elk in Northern California. If wolf packs grow too numerous, they could greatly reduce the numbers of elk, which are wolves’ primary source of food, he said.

About a half-dozen people also spoke in favor of wolves. Karin Vardaman of the California Wolf Center said she was eager to work with ranchers and state officials to prevent cattle deaths.

“We have no desire to see cattle die,” Vardaman said.

http://www.redding.com/news/local/Siskiyou-County-residents-express-worry-over-wolves-366161771.html?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_content=&utm_campaign=TopHeadlines_Newsletter

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
1 Comment

Fish and Game upheaval reveals shift in California wildlife policy

Dept. Fish & Game, State gov

January 15, 2016

Commissioner Jim Kellogg retired in late December in frustration over what he termed a lack of consideration for the sportsmen and women he represents. The resignation — combined with the unrelated recent departures of commission President Jack Baylis and Sonke Mastrup, the commission’s executive director — sets the stage for Gov. Jerry Brown to appoint conservationists to the increasingly pivotal state board.
Such a move may, observers say, complete the transformation of the commission from an organization that advocates for fishing and hunting to one that safeguards endangered species, preserves habitat and protects California’s top predators from slaughter.
But it won’t happen without a fight. While environmentalists say they are finally getting a fair shake in the high-stakes political game of wildlife management, advocates for outdoor sports fear they have lost their voice and that the role they have played in the protection of species is being forgotten.
The five-member commission, whose job is to recommend policies to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, has been wading through divisive issues that could profoundly impact the future of the state, including what to do about diminishing salmon populations, sick sea lions and disappearing sea otters.
How California responds to growing numbers of wolves, coyotes and mountain lions is a central battle. The question is whether the predators should be tolerated or encouraged — or driven away by guard dogs or gunned down when they get too close to people or livestock.
Historically, the commission has been made up almost entirely of hunters and fishermen, but that focus has changed in the past several years.
“It has been going through a transition from a predominantly hunting and fishing commission to more of an environmental commission,” said Bill Gaines, a hunting advocate and lobbyist for the outdoor sports community. “They are responsible for a lot of things that would never have been on their agenda several decades ago.”
Brown, who is responsible for appointments on the commission, did not say when he would fill the vacancies.
“We aim to fill all of our vacancies with the most qualified, capable and committed candidates from a broad and diverse pool of applicants,” said the governor’s spokesman, Evan Westrup, in a written statement. “That ultimately dictates the timing of our appointments.”
Fish and Game’s transition ratcheted up over the past few years with the departures of two commissioners: Michael Sutton, an avid hunter and fisherman who nevertheless disapproved of trophy hunting, and Daniel Richards, who was famously photographed with a dead mountain lion he had killed in Idaho.

Richard Rogers also left the commission last year.
The replacements for Sutton and Rogers — Anthony Williams, a 47-year-old lawyer and Democratic consultant from Huntington Beach who is the first African American in the commission’s 145-year history, and Eric Sklar, 52, of St. Helena — are considered to be more conservation-minded.
But it was the resignation of Kellogg, who often teamed up with Sutton and Richards, that was viewed by many as the end of the line for the hunting and fishing coalition on the commission.
“I’m leaving pretty much out of frustration,” Kellogg said in an interview. He had been on the board for 14 years when he retired Dec. 31, the longest-serving member of the commission.
“I’m just tired of being the only one fighting the fight for the hunters and fishers,” he said. “The first 12 years I won most of the battles, and the last couple of years I lost almost every battle.”
The changes on the commission are an illustration of a statewide phenomenon. Californians, more than ever, regard wildlife, including apex predators, as a valuable part of the ecosystem instead of as food or vermin.
Chuck Bonham, the director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, says he is committed to embracing science-based wildlife and ecosystem management while preserving the history and traditions associated with hunting and fishing.
Clearly, though, there has been a movement away from those traditions. The transformation became vivid in 2012 when then-Assemblyman Jared Huffman of San Rafael, who has since been elected to Congress, introduced a bill to change the name of the department that has managed fishing and hunting in California since 1872 from “Fish and Game” to “Fish and Wildlife.”
The bill passed in 2013 despite opposition from hunters, who saw it as a signal that game animals would soon be made off-limits. The commission itself, however, maintained the “Fish and Game” moniker despite lobbying by environmental groups to change the names of both the commission and the department it serves.
The name change was part of a slew of legislation requiring, among other things, that the department take into account ecosystem balance and sound science when managing wildlife. To conservationists, it represented a rejection of an archaic view that wildlife is meant to be shot or speared and mounted on a wall.
“It has become a more open-minded forum where Californians of all viewpoints can be heard and, on any given day, anyone can win,” said Jennifer Fearing, a lobbyist for the Humane Society of the United States and other animal protection organizations. “I think it was stacked against conservationists for so long that any shift seems like a victory for conservation.”
Many farmers, ranchers and rural residents, however, believe the state is turning away from them as they struggle to hold on to their heritage.
“I come from the days when most people grew up with a fishing pole and kids spent most of their life outdoors. Today kids just sit on the couch with their cell phone,” Kellogg said. “The whole world is changing. What people don’t understand, though, is that when there isn’t any hunting in California, there won’t be any native wildlife, because it is the hunters and fishermen who spend the money on wildlife management.”
In fact, Gaines has argued, hunting and fishing tags and license fees contribute $80 million to $100 million a year to the Department of Fish and Wildlife — roughly a quarter of the annual budget. He said 60 percent of the interior wetlands of California are privately owned, preserved and managed for duck hunting, and that the national wildlife refuge system is overwhelmingly funded by hunters.
At the same time, noted Gaines, recent studies have shown that only 10 percent of Californians actively support hunting. The number of state residents who hunt and fish has been declining for decades, according to researchers.
Hunting groups believe animal rights advocates want to outlaw the pastime entirely. They point to recent laws banning bobcat trapping, the use of lead bullets, coyote killing contests and the hounding of bears and bobcats.
The establishment of vast marine protected areas along the coast and the recent release of a draft management plan for carefully handling wolves, which are expected to multiply in California after a long absence, served as further proof to some ranchers and sportsmen that they are playing second fiddle to what they see as tree-hugging, save-the-whales city slickers.
Far from wanting to ban hunting and fishing, Fearing said she just wants state policy makers to listen to all sides. Until recently, she said, anyone who introduced science that contradicted rural ranching and pro-hunting doctrine was dismissed.
“If you want the rest of the state to chip in and advocate for more resources to make sure we have robust protection of our wildlife, you have to convince the public that you are an agency that shares their values,” Fearing said. “I think they are doing that now. It’s incumbent on them to grow that trust.”
Geoff Shester, the California program director for the marine advocacy group Oceana, said he hopes the Fish and Game Commission will be guided by a responsibility to protect rather than destroy in the future.
“What’s happening is not an antifishing or antihunting perspective,” said Shester, who has fought for the protection of ecosystems, including the San Francisco Bay herring fishery. “It’s more about how to do these activities responsibly. Dealing with issues like overfishing is good for both fishing communities and for the conservation community.”

http://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Upheaval-at-Fish-and-Game-highlights-shift-in-6759859.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

1 Comment

Big Game board ups hunting guide fees, hoping to eliminate $1 million deficit

Dept. Fish & Game, State gov

PNP comment: Once again, it is poor administration practices and bureaucrats that caused the huge deficit by not doing the job right — for decades. — Liz Bowen

Alaska Dispatch News

Pat Forgey

JUNEAU — Alaska hunting guides are being hit with new fees as the state tries to cope with big budget deficits, but the higher fees would have come anyway, says the chairman of the Big Game Commercial Services Board.

The new fees will raise $1 million to pay off an operating deficit of the board that the state has been subsidizing, hopefully within two years, said chairman Kelly Vrem, who’s also a Sutton-based guide. The highest fees after the adjustment will be $1,700 for nonresident guide and transporter licenses, an increase of $400. A full list is here. According to the state, in 2013 there were 132 licensed master guides, 462 guides, 1,031 assistant guides and 158 transporters working in Alaska.

“We, the industry as a whole, we are not looking for any subsidies, and we certainly are not looking for a freebie,” he said. “We understand the obligation to pay our way.”

State law says the Big Game Board and others like it should be self-supporting, funded by fees. But that has not always been the case. With the state’s current fiscal situation, Vrem said the board understood deficits couldn’t continue and it supported fee increases.

Current fees for the guides, assistants, transporters and others the board regulates cover administration costs, but haven’t been enough to cover the cost of investigations and the attorneys that prosecute cases. That’s where most of the $1 million deficit comes from, Vrem said, adding that just a few cases make up the bulk of the shortfall.

“We’re frustrated that the overwhelming majority of guides don’t get into any trouble, it’s a tiny minority that cause these investigative and legal costs that we’re saddled with paying,” he said.

And it’s difficult to estimate the costs of investigations in advance, Vrem said, because that depends on numbers of violations and how aggressively accused guides choose to fight.

“It just depends on how good our licensees have been or if they want to lawyer up and fight something, or sign a consent agreement and get it behind them,” he said.

The board is part of the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, and is under the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing.

Vrem said the responsibility for the deficit began years ago, when the division failed to provide the board with an accurate accounting of its costs.

That’s true, said Sara Chambers, the division’s operations manager.

“It’s from the mid-90s, it predated anybody who’s here now, but it appeared there was really a lack of administrative oversight or checks and balances, over the documentation that was being provided to the board” about costs, Chambers said.

MORE

http://www.adn.com/article/20151220/big-game-board-ups-hunting-guide-fees-hoping-eliminate-1-million-deficit

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

1 Comment

Jim Beers exposes California Fish and Game (Wildlife) effort to muzzle ranchers

Dept. Fish & Game, Liberty, Property rights, State gov, Wildlife, Wolves

How Bureaucrats, Anarchists and Communists Use Wolves to Establish Tyranny

The following comments concern this intergovernmental/”stakeholder” Meeting:

Meeting Report
Meeting on Wolves in California
California Department of General Services
Sacramento, CA 95814
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=105453&inline

This meeting was about the inevitable and currently happening spread of federal wolves into California from Oregon (that got them from Idaho that got them from Montana that got them from Yellowstone National Park that got them from Alberta and the Yukon where they were trapped and then transported and released without documentation in Yellowstone by US Fish and Wildlife Service bureaucrats using over $35 Million stolen by USFWS Managers from Excise Taxes on Arms and Ammunition intended only for state wildlife programs AFTER Congress had refused to authorize or fund this wolf debacle.)

Note:

NO federal bureaucrats were ever charged or disciplined for this criminal act, indeed the Director at the time is now a top executive of Defenders of Wildlife and her political lieutenant at the time in charge of the stolen funds is currently the Director of USFWS. The stolen funds were never replaced in the state wildlife funding budgets because the state wildlife agency directors and their Washington lobby group refused to request the replacement for fear of angering federal bureaucrats that increasingly fund and direct state wildlife programs. But I digress.

The subject meeting of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife was fairly (read the report) reported as: “California’s Draft Wolf Management Plan was finished last year.

At the California Wolf Stakeholder group’s final meeting (Dec. 2014), much of the discussion focused on how to “limit information sharing” and what sorts of penalties and pressure can be put on ranchers who might share information about wolf locations with their neighbors. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to detailing the acceptable non-lethal “COEXISTENCE” measures ranchers will be allowed to employ as wolves begin eating their stock.”

Please read that again, more slowly. Now ask yourself if this meeting is being held in the United States or is this a History Channel Documentary about Russian Bureaucracy Directives during the establishment of the Gulags in the 1920’s or the starvation of millions of Ukrainians to collectivize their farms in the 1930’s?

There are 4 phrases in this news item that would provide any still-living Russian communists (Russian communism was birthed in Anarchy) grounds to sue the California and US federal governments for stealing copyrighted communist bureaucratic procedures and material.

1. “Wolf Stakeholder group’s” are euphemisms like “Peoples Republic”, “Comrades Commission” and “Collective Managers”: that is to say it is a group of government toadies assembled to create the illusion of “public input” and “participation” as a fog for government mandate. In this case however, since there is still the illusion of the USA being a Constitutional Republic to be maintained for a short while, we have not only the gaggle of state and federal bureaucrats and an elected “Agriculture” politician plus the radical groups they answer to (Defenders, Sierra, NRDC, CBD, Wolf “Centers”, etc., etc.): we have those clandestine representatives paid by and employed by those comrades-to-be that will actually be hurt, damaged and even destroyed by their fellow-travelers in this meeting. I speak here of “The Woolgrowers”, “The Elk Hunters”, “The Mule Deer Hunters”, “The Farmers”, “The Cattlemen”, and “The Deer Hunters” whose paid lobbyists are dressed up as “Foundation”, “Association” and “Bureau” Representatives to lend their name and their Organization’s name and “gravitas” to this document. That means that all you members of these ELK & DEER Foundations and Associations; all you members of these CATTLEMEN & WOOLGROWERS & FARM Bureaus and Associations are paying your organization not only to diminish and ultimately destroy your own livelihoods and communities but also to push this nation further into government tyranny that will burden your children and grandchildren and leave them with the choice faced by Our Founding Fathers that fought and died in the American Revolution against Britain over 220 years ago or of acquiescing to slavery as subjects of tyrants..

2. Consider “much of the discussion focused on how to “limit information sharing” as a topic “discussed” by bureaucrats, an elected official, a gaggle of radicals and a group of Benedict Arnolds “representing” those about to be further diminished and even destroyed. The key word here is “limit”. Just as “information” about purposeful starvation of Ukrainians was “limited” as a “famine”, and German “information” about concentration camps was “limited” as “work camps” so too are these ex-Americans plotting to control and “limit information” about a terrible action that will:

– Endanger, especially children and the elderly, rural residents and rural visitors by exposing them to death and injury from wolf attacks as is common in Russia and Asia and is increasingly common in North America.
– Eliminate big-game hunting (as Minnesota wolves have done to Minnesota Moose Hunting).
– Eliminate domestic livestock husbandry as we know it (as wolves are doing to cattle, sheep, and dogs of all stripes) currently from Washington State to New Mexico as well as all over western Canada, Alaska, Asia, and increasingly in Europe).
– Expose rural Americans to over 30 deadly and debilitating diseases and infections that wolves catch and transmit over the vast areas they roam including but not limited to:
– Rabies (H) (OA)
– Brucellosis (H) (OA)

Hydatid Disease (2):
– Echinococcus granulosis (H) (OA)
– Echinococcus multilocularis (H) (OA)

– Anthrax (H) (OA)
– Encephalitis (H) (OA)
– Great Lakes Fish Tapeworm (H) (OA)
– Smallpox (H) (OA)
– Mad Cow Disease(BSE) (OA) (H)
– Chronic Wasting Disease (OA)

From Ticks (10) Carried by wolves:
– Anemia (H)
– Dermatosis (H)
– Tick paralysis (H)
– Babesiosis (H)
– Anaplasmosis (H)
– Erlichia (H)
– E. Coast Fever (H)
– Relapsing Fever (H)
– Rocky Mtn. Spotted Fever (H)
– Lyme Disease (H)

From Fleas (4) Carried by wolves:
– Plague (H)
– Bubonic Plague (H)
– Pneumonic Plague (H)
– Flea-Borne Typhus (H)

– Distemper (OA)
– Neospora caninum (OA)
– 2 Types of Mange (H) (OA)
– GID (a disease of wild and domestic sheep) (OA)
– Foot-and-Mouth (OA)
– Parvo (OA)

Of the 30 diseases and infections listed, 24 affect humans and many of these are deadly. Whether it is a child ingesting tapeworm eggs from a ranch house floor rug or a jogging soccer Mom encountering wolves as a schoolteacher did recently in Alaska that resulted in a horrible death, the fact that these human health hazards have been given short-shrift by wildlife agencies and their veterinarians is nothing short of scandalous. (James Beers’ Testimony before an Oregon State Legislative Committee 25 May 2010)

“Limit information?” “Who, me?”

3. As they “discuss, “what sorts of penalties and pressure can be put on ranchers who might share information about wolf locations with their neighbors” all Americans of every stripe should rise up and demand the firing of these bureaucrats and the recall of any elected officials involved in such a travesty of American Constitutional government. Radical environmental and animals rights organizations AND the so-called hunter/farmer/ranch organizations should be barred from any future participation in any federal or state work groups or advisory committees of any nature!

Oh, and by the way, those people that hire and support such organizations should be reminded that those that support bureaucrats and politicians subverting such Constitutional guarantees as required in their oath to “uphold the Constitution of the United States”; when the 9th Amendment guarantees “rights” “not denied or disparaged” in the Constitution; and when the 1st Amendment that specifically protects and guarantees our “FREEDOM OF SPEECH” – THEY ONLY PROVE HOW IGNORANCE AND LAZINESS allows freedom and liberty to be replaced by tyranny due to indifference on the part of the citizenry! Why all the way back to The Magna Carta (1215 AD), Item 45 stated “We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.”

We are regressing into the mists of the terrifying world Thomas Hobbes described in his 1651 AD book Leviathan where “life was nasty, brutish and short” by permitting these evil people to dismantle our liberties and guaranteed rights that have existed nowhere else in the world!

“Penalties and pressure”? You mean like, “Comrade Children, you will inform your teachers or the police if your parents or anyone in your family “share information about wolf locations” (???) What about “sharing information” about politicians, or bureaucrats, or the government, or the laws, or (fill-in-the-blank)”? Do they mean, “Penalties” like fines, jail, prison, loss of property, deportation to Gitmo to free a terrorist, or being locked in a room for a year listening to recordings of speeches of politicians like Hillary or Arlen Spector drone on 24/7? Do they mean, “Pressure” like mandatory re-education for all rural residents like sex and race propaganda movies mandated for government employees, or watching demeaning Public Service propaganda advertising clips on TV and the radio that belittle all those expressing any disagreement with government policies?

4. Finally we come to the “piece de resistance”, detailing the acceptable non-lethal “COEXISTENCE” measures ranchers will be allowed to employ as wolves begin eating their stock.” Government dumps the wolves on rural Americans and despite all the evidence to the contrary allows NO lethal control for ranchers as “wolves begin eating their stock”. Even the ineffective and childish non-lethal (fladry, electric fences, collars, taste deterrents, noises, prison fencing, pits (like in the Tarzan movies), wolf puppy training, etc., etc., etc.) methods must be examined and government determination made as to what is allowable and what is prohibited to owners “when wolves begin eating their stock”!

There is not even provision for protecting dogs, or whatever havoc is wreaked on game animals, or the presence of wolves in rural living spaces, or schoolyards, or at school bus stops, etc.

Also, there is the vaguely-concealed anti-2nd Amendment agenda so rampant in California political and political-correctness hysteria:
1. No one should have a gun.
2. No Concealed or Unconcealed Carry Permits (except for “Leaders, Commissars and other Exceptional and Favored Comrades as Determined by Government”) are necessary or allowed.
3. Cougars should reach and maintain densities where human attacks and human deaths are routine and no hunt or armed protection is needed or allowed.
4. All gun ammunition for any use should be regulated to assure that the least effective bullets and shot, and the most expensive ammunition are the only ammunition permitted to be sold. The only exceptions being for exceptions as noted under #2 and those that protect them or are on active duty with the armed forces while outside the State.
5. Government-introduced wolves are to be fed, protected and ignored by all “ranchers” (soon to include everyone except those exempted by government in writing). No lethal controls are hereby authorized for anyone not mentioned under #2 until after pleading to and receiving from government a specific permit. No permits are authorized until further notice.

It all reminds me of a college philosophy class I took many years ago. The (crooked) syllogism emerging from all this would look something like:
California is ruled by the Procedures of the Communist Manifesto.
California is a State in the United States of America.
Therefore, The USA is ruled by the Procedures of the Communist Manifesto.

This wolf model from California is but one of a succeeding progression of precedents that we continue to ignore at our own peril.
– Like US Fish and Wildlife Service increasingly evading responsibility for harms and costs they impose under the auspices of “saving X, Y & Z” leads to an EPA that is not responsible for or liable for the destruction of the Animas and San Juan Rivers or answerable to the residents of the States and Reservations they have affected.
– Or how the responsibility and liability for all the annual “catastrophic” forest fires, deaths and property losses throughout the West are evaded by the US Forest Service and the Sierra/Wilderness/NRDC/et al “Bunches” that cause them.
– Or how the National Park Service is not accountable, responsible or liable for the deaths of visitors gored by a mountain goat that for years had threatened visitors or all the hikers and campers killed by grizzly bears or gored by “free-roaming” buffalo.
So too have these despicable “Stakeholders” composed a Wolf Manifesto that serves many other foul agendas and that others must live by or feel the harsh retribution of a government that no longer even gives lip service to the history and traditions of the US Constitutional Republic and has adopted disproven communist principles that give them short term returns and surely an inevitable pushback that, like King George and his servants, they will one day regret.
(PS Strong letter to follow and if you want to know how I REALLY feel about this, drop me a line.)

Jim Beers
22 August 2015

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.
Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

1 Comment

California’s first wolf pack found in Siskiyou County

Dept. Fish & Game, Wolves

PNP comment: Pretty sad news for Siskiyou County residents, who now must worry about keeping their their pets, sheep, cattle, goats and children safe from these additional predators. And these are not CALIFORNIA wolves — they are CANADIAN wolves introduced by fraud by the California Dept. of Fish and Game (Wildlife). — Angry Editor Liz Bowen

20 August 2015 / Ryan Sabalow: 916-321-1264, @ryansabalow.

Sacramento Bee

Turns out Siskiyou County’s lone gray wolf sighted this spring wasn’t as lonesome as he or she once appeared.

On Thursday, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife released photos of five wolf pups with a group of adults, providing more evidence that the endangered species was returning to the state.

State officials say that after motion-activated trail cameras spotted a lone wolf near McCloud in May and July, the agency set out more cameras. One of them took multiple photos showing five pups, which appear to be a few months old, and two adults.
Because of the proximity to the original camera locations, it is likely the adult previously photographed is a member of the group, which state officials are now calling “the Shasta Pack.”

“This news is exciting for California,” said department Director Charlton H. Bonham in a prepared statement. “We knew wolves would eventually return home to the state and it appears now is the time.”

The news of an actual wolf pack in California comes more than a year after OR-7, California’s famous wandering wolf, headed back to Oregon.

OR-7’s arrival to California in late 2011 – the first confirmed wolf sighting in California since 1924 – spurred state officials to add endangered species protections for wolves, a move cheered by wolf-restoration advocates and condemned by some deer and elk hunters and livestock producers.

The agency is expected to soon release its Draft Wolf Management Plan.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

California Fish and Wildlife Persecutes Ranchers Over Water Rights

Agriculture - California, California Rivers, California water, CORRUPTION, CRIMINAL, Dept. Fish & Game, State gov, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

Daily Surge.com

Read at

http://dailysurge.com/2015/07/california-fish-and-wildlife-persecutes-ranchers-over-water-rights/

On June 10th, 2015, a dozen or more neighbors, in a small valley, located in far northern California, helped some ranchers gain access to their water rights, which dates back to 1863.  We went into the river and moved rocks.  Rocks displaced by a spring flood event, in order to get the water to flow toward the fish screen, at the mouth of a one hundred year old irrigation ditch.  Our neighbors needed help.  They had applied for a permit some six months earlier. They watched the river levels dropping, wondering why it would take more than half a year to get permission to do such a small job.  Finally, out of desperation, in order to put some water on the crops which provide for their families, more than a dozen of us answered the call for help.

We acted collectively knowing the state would have to make a decision to prosecute all of us.

California Fish and Wildlife is deciding whether to go forward with that prosecution.  Cal Fish and Wildlife contends that every surface water user must ask permission prior to turning water onto their crops.

Fish and Wildlife has an agenda.  California, using this agency, intends to gain control over all surface water rights in California.  Water rights are real property rights in California.  There is a priority system to ensure the rights are used under the “first in time, first in right doctrine”.  California’s executive agencies have been locked in a battle with farmers and ranchers for decades trying to gain control over all surface and subsurface water rights in our state.

To give an idea of the ridiculous nature of this persecution, one of the potential charges contemplated against us, is the act of “unlawfully entering a wet area.”  I never knew it to be a crime to step in the water.  There are State Senators, County Supervisors, State Assembly people and at least one Congressman now involved in our heinous act of making a leaky ten foot long rock dam.  Oh, and unlawfully entering a wet area.  The reason so many of us entered the wet area to help our neighbors get their water?  Because we know the Department of Fish and Wildlife is looking for someone to prosecute for failing to ask Big Brother’s permission to use adjudicated water rights.  Our community is not willing to allow our friends and neighbor go this alone.  Fish and Wildlife will either take all of us, or take none of us!

The open question for the people of California, as well as the rest of the United States is as follows; when is a right, not a right?  A property right is not a right when it requires permission or a permit.  I am reminded of Ben Franklin when he said, “Property must be secure or Liberty cannot exist.”  When permission is required, permission can be denied.   Fees are always involved.  The State is in a position to price people out of their property rights.  When does the Bill of Rights or the Charter of Rights in our State Constitution enter the process?

Article one; Section one, of the California Constitution declares that all people are free and independent by nature with certain inalienable rights.  Among them, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property.  Why bother to have Constitution when the agencies of the executive can ignore the Charter of Rights, or the Bill of Rights?  Why are we forced to ask government every time we want to water our crops, provide drinking water to our animals, in order to provide decent lives for our children?  If we are not to be denied Life, Liberty or Property, without due process, how is the executive branch of government allowed to dictate to the people they are supposed to serve, when, where and how, property can or cannot be used and how much it will cost you to use the  property you own.

The people of our watershed are waiting for the other shoe to drop.  We wait to see if the government of, for, and by, the people will choose to persecute us for using water we have the inalienable right to use.  We will not submit.  We will not abdicate our property rights to executive branch of the State of California or to any agency of that branch.  To do otherwise would be to admit that we have become subjects of the Monarchy called California.

Tyranny rarely fixes itself.

We must all ask ourselves whether our creation, (yes, people created government, not the other way around), has become our master?  This is the primary reason eight counties of California have signed Declarations and Petitions to withdraw from the State of California under Article 4, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, to form the 51st State.  The State of Jefferson.  Rural Northern California has no representation.  We must act to restore the inalienable rights to Liberty, and Property for ourselves and for generations to come.

Read more at http://dailysurge.com/2015/07/california-fish-and-wildlife-persecutes-ranchers-over-water-rights/

No Comments

As predicted: AB-498 Wildlife conservation: wildlife corridors.(2015-2016)

Dept. Fish & Game

PNP comment: Thank you to Debbie Bacigalupi for sending this and staying on top of the wolf problem. — Editor Liz Bowen

Here is the text of
Version:

AB-498 Wildlife conservation: wildlife corridors.(2015-2016)
Text Votes History Bill Analysis Today’s Law As Amended Compare Versions Status Comments To Author
SHARE THIS:
Bill Start

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 22, 2015
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 28, 2015
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 08, 2015

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2015–2016 REGULAR SESSION

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 498
________________________________________

Introduced by Assembly Member Levine

February 23, 2015
________________________________________

An act to amend Sections 1797.5, 1930, and 1930.5 of the Fish and Game Code, relating to fish and wildlife.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 498, as amended, Levine. Wildlife conservation: wildlife corridors.
Existing law requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to administer the Significant Natural Areas Program, and requires the department, among other things, to develop and maintain a spatial data system that identifies those areas in the state that are most essential for maintaining habitat connectivity, including wildlife corridors and habitat linkages. Existing law requires the department, contingent upon the provision of certain funding, to investigate, study, and identify those areas in the state that are most essential as wildlife corridors and habitat linkages and prioritize vegetative data development in those areas. Existing law requires the department to seek input from representatives of other state agencies, local government, federal agencies, nongovernmental conservation organizations, landowners, agriculture, recreation, scientific entities, and industry in determining essential wildlife corridors and habitat linkages.
This bill would declare that it is the policy of the state, with regard to a project proposed in an area identified as a wildlife corridor, to encourage the project proponent to consult with the department, and, state to encourage, wherever feasible and practicable, take voluntary steps to promote, protect, or restore protect the functioning of the wildlife corridor wildlife corridors through various means, as applicable.
Existing law provides for the establishment of conservation banks, defined as publicly or privately owned and operated sites that are to be conserved and managed for habitat protection purposes in accordance with an agreement with the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Existing law provides for the issuance of credits by a conservation bank to, among other things, reduce adverse impacts to fish or wildlife resources from certain activities. Existing law also provides for the establishment of mitigation banks, as defined.
This bill would include within the authorized purposes of a conservation bank the maximization protection of habitat connectivity for fish and wildlife resources.
This bill would provide that a project applicant may receive advance mitigation credits for investing in a mitigation bank that protects habitat connectivity for affected fish and wildlife resources, and would further provide that the fact that a project applicant does not take voluntary steps to protect the functioning of a wildlife corridor prior to initiating the application process for the project shall not be grounds for denying a permit or requiring additional mitigation beyond what is otherwise required by law to mitigate project impacts.
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO
________________________________________
Bill Text
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.
Section 1797.5 of the Fish and Game Code is amended to read:
1797.5.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) “Bank” means a conservation bank, mitigation bank, or conservation and mitigation bank.
(b) “Bank enabling instrument” means a written agreement with the department regarding the establishment, use, operation, and maintenance of the bank.
(c) “Bank sponsor” means the person or entity responsible for establishing and operating a bank.
(d) “Conservation bank” means a publicly or privately owned and operated site that is to be conserved and managed in accordance with a written agreement with the department that includes provisions for the issuance of credits, on which important habitat, including habitat for threatened, endangered, or other special status species, exists, has been, or will be created to do any of the following:
(1) Compensate for take or other adverse impacts of activities authorized pursuant to Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3.
(2) Reduce adverse impacts to fish or wildlife resources from activities, authorized pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2, to less than substantial.
(3) Mitigate significant effects on the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) and Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15000) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations).
(4) Establish mitigation in advance of any impacts or effects.
(5) To the extent feasible and practicable, maximize protect habitat connectivity for the affected fish and wildlife resources.
(e) “Conservation easement” means a perpetual conservation easement, as defined by Section 815.1 of the Civil Code, covering the real property that comprises the bank site.
(f) “Mitigation bank” means either of the following:
(1) A bank site or mitigation bank site as defined by Section 1777.2.
(2) Any publicly or privately owned and operated site, other than those defined by Section 1777.2, on which wetlands exist, have been, or will be created, and that is to be conserved and managed in accordance with a written agreement with the department for any of the purposes described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (d).
(g) “Person” has the meaning set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 711.2.
(h) “Prospectus” means a written summary of the proposed bank containing a sufficient level of detail to support informed department review and comment.
SEC. 2.
Section 1930 of the Fish and Game Code is amended to read:
1930.
The Legislature finds and declares that:
(a) Areas containing diverse ecological and geological characteristics are vital to the continual health and well being of the state’s natural resources and of its citizens.
(b) Many habitats and ecosystems that constitute the state’s natural diversity are in danger of being lost.
(c) Connectivity between wildlife habitats is important to the long-term viability of the state’s biodiversity.
(d) Preserving, restoring, Preserving and connecting high-quality habitat for wildlife can create habitat strongholds.
(e) Increasingly fragmented habitats threaten the state’s wildlife species.
(f) There is an opportunity to provide incentive for private landowners to maintain and perpetuate significant local natural areas in their natural state.
(g) Efforts to preserve natural areas have been fragmented between federal, state, local, and private sectors.
(h) Analysis of the state’s habitat connectivity benefits from the consideration of all relevant data, including information from private and public landowners.
(i) The department’s existing mapping activities and products should be developed and sustained.
(j) The importance of wildlife corridors to assist in adapting to climate change has been recognized by such groups as the Western Governor’s Governors’ Association, which unanimously approved a policy to protect wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitat in 2007. Individual local, state, and federal agencies have also adopted policies aimed at protecting wildlife corridors and restoring habitat connectivity, in order to protect ecosystem health and biodiversity and to improve the resiliency of wildlife and their habitats to climate change. However, these efforts could be enhanced through establishment of a statewide policy to protect and restore important wildlife corridors and habitat linkages where feasible. feasible and practicable.
SEC. 3.
Section 1930.5 of the Fish and Game Code is amended to read:
1930.5.
(a) Contingent upon funding being provided by the Wildlife Conservation Board from moneys available pursuant to Section 75055 of the Public Resources Code, or from other appropriate bond funds, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the department shall investigate, study, and identify those areas in the state that are most essential as wildlife corridors and habitat linkages, as well as the impacts to those wildlife corridors from climate change, and shall prioritize vegetative data development in these areas.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the Wildlife Conservation Board use various funds to work with the department to complete a statewide analysis of wildlife corridors and connectivity to support conservation planning and climate change adaptation activities.
(c) (1) It is the policy of the state to promote the voluntary protection of wildlife corridors and habitat strongholds in order to enhance the resiliency of wildlife and their habitats to climate change, protect biodiversity, and allow for the migration and movement of species by providing connectivity between habitat lands. In order to further these goals, it is the policy of the state, with regard to a project proposed in an area identified as a wildlife corridor, to encourage the project proponent to consult with the department, and, state to encourage, wherever feasible and practicable, take voluntary steps to promote, protect, or restore protect the functioning of the wildlife corridor corridors through various means, as applicable. Those
As applicable and to the extent feasible and practicable, those means may include, but are not necessarily limited to, acquisition to:
(A) Acquisition or protection of wildlife corridors as open space through conservation easements, installing easements.
(B) Installing of wildlife-friendly fencing, and provision fencing.
(C) Creation of mitigation and conservation banks that protect habitat connectivity for affected fish and wildlife resources.
(D) Provision of roadway undercrossings and undercrossings, oversized culverts and culverts, or bridges to allow for movement of wildlife between habitat areas, as applicable. areas.
(2) Consistent with Chapter 7.9 (commencing with Section 1797) of Division 2, a project applicant may receive advance mitigation credits for investing in a mitigation bank that, to the extent feasible and practicable, protects habitat connectivity for affected fish and wildlife resources. The fact that a project applicant does not take voluntary steps to protect the functioning of a wildlife corridor prior to initiating the application process for a project shall not be grounds for denying a permit or requiring additional mitigation beyond what would be required to mitigate project impacts under other applicable laws, including, but not limited to, the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3) and the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(d)It is further the intent of the Legislature that state agencies and other conservation planners be encouraged to access publicly available database tools developed by the department and other conservation partners to support and assist conservation planning and facilitate identification, mapping, and prioritization of wildlife corridors and other habitat connectivity linkages. Those tools shall include, but need not be limited to, the statewide California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project and other more fine-scale regional wildlife connectivity analyses, as those guidance tools are developed and refined and made publicly available through the department’s Internet Web site.
(e)
(d) The Legislature finds and declares that there are a number of existing programs, including, but not necessarily limited to, programs involving working landscapes, such as timberlands, agricultural lands, and rangelands, that are already working to achieve the policy described in subdivision (c).
(f)
(e) Subdivision (c) shall not be construed to create new regulatory requirements or modify the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(g)
(f) For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) “Habitat stronghold” means high-quality habitat that supports wildlife in being more resilient to increasing pressures on species due to climate change and land development.
(2) “Wildlife corridor” means a habitat linkage that joins two or more areas of wildlife habitat, allowing for the movement of wildlife from one area to another.


Debbie Bacigalupi, MBA, CS, CMP
Independent Consultant, #756056
1-650-417-1674

No Comments
« Older Posts