I read some of the pdf and disliked its format and data's. I am also old enough to see it as a highly studied document by California F&G and their Legal support Departments yet, there are many, and I mean many areas, to be concerned over. Before posting I made the pdf sections one color, my words in black and some items in red.
I am a newer person to MM's if not the newest and a neophyte insofar as if my colored sections will be retained once pasted into this forum.
I wish I had the health and energy to go to the February 11th, 2016 (8:30am & me = zero chance) meeting and also the one in Santa Rosa at the Flamingo Conference Resort & Spa April 14th, 2016 (Again @ 8:30am) and know I could stand before the Commission and Speak. I don't know if they allow such or if they have a time limit on anyone speaking or, if one must first do various steps to be recognized by the Commission in order to speak.
I do understand "Red Line Strike Out" works or term it; a process. I see no data that denotes if the individuals at the first meeting shall also be at the second and what mechanisms they have to Compose a gathering of "Allowed" information's from each meeting + letters and emails gathered then publicly announce all such information's and show, not assume, generalize or "Carve" a user helpful narrations, from all such public inputs. Then, meaning after such input is shown (editing out personal email addresses or envelope addresses) and also, conducting an Audit in which such individuals submitting input have previously had a valid Hunting and/or Fishing License and, assigning weight to each such person, per previous year(s) of having such a State License(s). Doing such allows a great deal in clarity and transparencies in Government Business Activities, Processes, Decree's and Decisional Outcomes and unknown Arbitration processes or Reconciliations. It also aligns itself with comparisons to adherence's to Federal laws and Discrimination's towards Disabled and Protected groups, and, many other factors which are blended into how our State Governments do business these days. In my views, there "Has Been" a series of Discriminatory and possibly, un-justifications in Rule and/or Law makings. I suppose one "Could" contend, large numbers (50+) of submitted emails/letters from large Cities where addresses and ISP's show, in an audit, such individuals have never held a Hunting or Fishing License (Sending Funds to F&G) may need to qualify such individuals insofar as their interactions currently or in the past, with wildlife. Such may be justified in Photography, demonstrated Trail Hiking (in California), Etc. If zero interaction is found in an audit, such individual or group data may be dismissed as, unfounded. Citizenship and Voting Rights has little to do in connection to actual wildlife interaction/knowledge's and current/former fiscal support to F&G and experiences connected with such lands that are zoned within California (Sections: 200, 202, 203, upward et al). The Department of Fish & Game HAS/IS conducting Audits on F&G License holders (the same as a Census) when compiling Hunter/Fishing success Reports and, having such a Requirement. Where does such "Requirement" find its Legal Authority and also, not impose upon ALL Residents/Citizens, the identical Poll, possibly done in a DMV, a Voting Registration Form, many other venues. Also, does a F&G License of any form require citizenship to obtain. Should it.....Can such be asked.. Just understand, everything I have written is just a Draft of my own notes and thoughts.
See below and I hope the color is retained so reading is more transparent and clear. I also properly made a link to another pdf this NOTICE speaks of but failes to attach or link to. Much of such does look positive to me. But I am not fully studied on either pdf. There should be a young smart Attorney reading these documents. Not me; a broken down old fart.
Existing regulations provide for the number of deer hunting tags in the Additional Hunts. The proposed action provides a range of tag numbers for each hunt from which a final number will be determined, based on the post-winter status of each deer herd. These ranges are necessary at this time because the final number of tags cannot be determined until spring herd data are collected in March/April. Because various environmental factors such as severe winter conditions can adversely affect herd recruitment and overwinter adult survival, the final recommended quotas may fall below the current proposed range into the “Low Kill” alternative identified in the most recent Environmental Document Regarding Deer Hunting. I highlighted "Because" due in several parts. First, when an Author begins a Long Sentence, it appears to me that someone else, edited the Document, adding length and repeating what has already been said by the original Author. Secondarily, it is a common sense belief among Hunters that any given Winter "May" cause unhealthy animals to parish, possibly for multiple factors, including vehicle traffic.
364 (Page 8)
Existing regulations in Section 364, Title 14, CCR, specify elk license tag quotas for each hunt. In order to achieve elk herd management goals and objectives and maintain hunting quality, it is periodically necessary to adjust quotas, seasons, hunt areas and other criteria, in response to dynamic environmental 9 and biological conditions. The proposed amendments to Section 364 will establish 2016 tag quotas within each hunt adjusting for annual fluctuations in population number, season dates and tag distribution. The complete amended text is found in the amended Regulatory Text of Section 364 with the Initial Statement of Reasons.
Under page 9;
Remove, Amend, and Establish New Hunt Areas. The Department is recommending changes to the Hunt Areas as described in amended subsections 364(a)(1) through (d)(20). It is here in normal Legal/Law codifications I would expect a direct link to the subject matter being written about, like this: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2016/364isor.pdf
I briefly read some of this late today. I see mentioning(s) of Landowners and Damages (Presumably, from Elk)(Has/Does the State reimburse such Landowners with Public Funds, if so, at what rate under better business practices are such amounts found to be accurate). However, I know one such Landowner and he also is an Attorney. He does not allow the Public upon his lands, even though, in various other areas in the Document, Fish & Game mentions California Resources, as in Public Property, Stewardship's, etc... Seemingly giving, each mentioning, additional weight to justify any/all Commission decisions. If the State and such a Governor appointed Commission are both accurate, where shall the Public's rights, access to such Resources (Elk in this case) be given to the Citizens and/or Residents of California whilst such "ELK" stand upon private lands..? If such a Landowner Charges a monetary fee for Private Land access and Hunting pursuit of such Elk/"Public Resources", what fiscal mechanism is in place for such monies to be returned to the State..?
364.1 Current regulations in Section 364.1, SHARE Elk Hunts, T14, CCR, specify elk tag quotas for each hunt area. In order to achieve elk herd management goals and objectives (Not Mentioned what they are) and maintain hunting quality, (What is considered or written which denotes what High Quality equates to) it is periodically (What and when does Periodically occur) necessary to adjust quotas in response to dynamic environmental and biological conditions. (What does such a statement mean. They covered Winter in other areas. The Red situations must be clearly understood by all readers. Is this a Mountain Lion factor).
353 The Commission anticipates benefits to the health and welfare of California residents and benefits to the State’s environment because the proposed regulation assists the Department in the sustainable management of California’s big game populations.
Non-monetary benefits to the public
All Sections in this Notice The Commission does not anticipate non-monetary benefits to the protection of public health and safety, worker safety, the prevention of discrimination, the promotion of fairness or social equity and the increase in openness and transparency in business and government.
The California Fish & Game Commission PDF and up-coming hearings contains, in my opinion, wordings in violation of Government Code sections 11342.580 and 11346.2(a)(1) which I believe relates to the use of Plain English.
Effect on Small Business
It has been determined that the adoption of these regulations may affect small business. The Commission has drafted the regulations in Plain English pursuant to Government Code Sections 11342.580 and 11346.2(a)(1).
The following ENDING paragraph is worrisome:
Consideration of Alternatives
The Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Commission, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Commission, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Sonke Mastrup Dated: December 15, 2015 Executive Director
Sonke Mastrup Resigns Published: Dec 22, 2015: Https://Www.Wonews.Com/T-FeatureArticle_MastrupResigns_12215.Aspx
Below Authored & Dated: Sonke Mastrup Dated: December 15, 2015 Executive Director. He wrote the document then days later resigned. Fish & Game has him as a Contact Person in the document/pdf: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2016/Mammal_ntc.pdf
TITLE 14. Fish and Game Commission Notice of Proposed Changes in Regulations NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fish and Game Commission (Commission), pursuant to the authority vested by Sections 200, 202, 203, 3960, 3960.2 and 3960.4 of the Fish and Game Code and to implement, interpret or make specific Sections 200, 202, 203, 203.1, 207, 3960, 3960.2, 3960.4 and 4756 of said Code, proposes to amend sections 265, 353, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, and 364.1; and add section 708.18 Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), relating to Mammal regulations for the 2016-2017 seasons.