DFG sticks it to unattached waterfowl hunters.

Discussion in 'California Flyway Forum' started by buriani, Oct 23, 2005.

  1. buriani

    buriani Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,796
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    vacaville, Ca.
    As I drew the very last lotto number at Sac, I reverted to plan B which was to shot the Sutter levee for the first hour then return to get back in line. (Another reason for no purge as it would remove this opportunity)
    WELL, the Sutter levee is POSTED "NO WATERFOWL HUNTING" north of Oswald road on both side of the Sutter closed zone. I did some basic talking to all the wardens at the Sac check station and they "knew nothing"
    The following must be considered RUMOR since I was not able to verify anything.
    First, there is a alleged 'trade' for some blinds for Sutter in exchange for the loss of this PUBLIC land to waterfowl hunting. (1)Did Sutter offer any blinds this weekend??? (2)Does anyone know how the FEDERAL refuge can get anything from the exchange of not hunting thousands of acres of STATE PUBLIC land???
    Second, the alleged reasons for the DFG to go along with the "DEAL" was the low life waterfowlers that skyscrape (a term NOT quantified in law) resulting in unwonted waste into the closed zone and the trespassing of said hunters on private land to retrieve downed game. Neither of these charges appear to be verified with DATA, only heresay and opinion.
    Rumor has it that the club owners (our brethren) put POLITICAL pressure on the water district since the pass shooting, which is still legal, was making the birds go up and thus reducing their chances of getting lower shots and degrading "THEIR" hunting.
    Since the LEVEE is PUBLIC PROPERTY AND was designated a wildlife area, it appears the logic to close it to public waterfowl hunting could applied to almost ANY PUBLIC hunting area.


    Does anyone have verifiable fact concerning this Posting???

    I intend to do some telephone research Monday to ask the DFG who, what, when, where, and WHY.
    I do NOT recall it being on the DFG game commission agenda and such a large loss of public waterfowl hunting area, one would think, should involve the Commish.

    Anyone who is inform on this matter please post up so that we can get a better view of our government in action.
     
  2. worknem

    worknem Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    581
    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Location:
    Fairfield CA
    Might do good to find out who hunts / owns that peice now Rudy. If I remember right that's always been a high value parcel. Seems like it'd take more than a little "pull" to get something like that accomplished.

    That part of levee has been open forever.

    Rel Atwood
     
  3. buriani

    buriani Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,796
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    vacaville, Ca.
    Rel, A lot of duck hunters have spent many hours on these levees and it is almost traditional to many, especially those with young kids. I have seen many families enjoying this public land. In fact, of the 10 vehicles at the gate on the levee, 3 Dad had kids with them. No wonder since it is all dry and has little hazards for the young one. I've seen many young BB gun hunters with their dads. I hate to see a tradition and a place you can take your kid or grandkid to enjoy the outdoors on Public land-- a kind of outdoor hunting park for families. Many on this forum have hunted these levees especially as youngsters.

    It has been widely known that the wardens dislike this area and in many respects, we earned that reputation, but where else can one take a newbee/youngster without a ressie to introduce them to waterfowling (Sometime at its worst of hunting but if it is legal, what can you say?) and do it in little time or expense and no lotto, no sweat line,no paperwork or check stand. A true public asset for the duck hunters and their youngsters.

    I honestly feel we, the public, have been cheated out of a rare place but since I don't know the whole story yet, that is strictly my opinion. I would like to hear from those on the fuge if they have any information which I could use to present to the game commission.

    I honestly think this should also be tested in court and I think I know how it is very beatable.(PM me if you are interested on how)
     
  4. DERODOM

    DERODOM Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,751
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Location:
    Sacramento
    Being that I sat in the Sutter parking lot for 11 hours between Friday and Saturday.... I heard a few arguments about the issue. Rudy, the theories you mentioned are the one's I was told. No... Sutter did not have the blinds open this weekend (sure wish they did since I was 2 short of an opening morning shoot @ #5). My understanding is that they are rice blinds that were traded for the levee (the rice is not harvested yet). Kind of funny that a rice blind that will be accessed mostly by Sutter reservations was traded for FREE hunting access without any reservation/Sweat-Line/Lottery. There were some unhappy hunters out there yesterday morning.... this "new deal" was not well publicized :z
     
  5. Powder

    Powder Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,634
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Yuba City, CA
     
  6. CenCalDucker

    CenCalDucker Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,446
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Location:
    Castle Anthrax
    Powder, well said! :tu
     
  7. buriani

    buriani Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,796
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    vacaville, Ca.
    Pass shooting is still part of the sport of hunting as far as I know. It is legal and on most refuges it is most common and dove hunting is almost exclusive pass shooting. Once again the ricers that are only thinking of them self and their hunting would want to remove this EASIEST, quickest of public hunting spots near the Sacramento metro area. I don't agree with all that happens on the levee nor do I agree with all that happens on refuges or in the rice but if it is legal there is not much we can do about it except change the laws.
    Your idea of duck hunting is not the only way and we must acknowledge that others have rights also and they don't have to agree with our methods as long as they are legal.
    Once again,it is PUBLIC land and (like robo) if it's legal--- they should be able to do it--hunt public wildlife areas.
    There are more levee hunter, by an overwhelming number, than ricers that are touched by this decision. In addition, why was this not part of any agenda for the game commission? This didn't happen over night. It took a lots of politicking to accomplish this WITHOUT PUBLIC REVIEW OR INPUT as far as I can tell.
    BTW, my intent was to hunt Sac that afternoon (which I did) and going to the levee is not a bad option especially if you want to visit the casino for breakfast and you have the last lotto number.
     
  8. fat.eatingducks

    fat.eatingducks Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,510
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Location:
    O.B.City, Baby!
    Rudy,

    Based on the addition of the "NO WATERFOWL HUNTING" sign, I think they DID make it illegal and they DID do something about it.

    Based on your comments about politics, ricers, who cares or doesn't care about who...that is all conjecture...let's stick to the facts.

    The only facts you know are that there wasn't a sign there last year; there is sign there this year, the only method of waterfowl taking on that levee is pass shooting birds moving from the refuge into a private club or vise versa; and that the behavior of some of the "so-called hunters" shooting at these passing ducks is disagreeable to you.

    By the way, USF&W opened an additional 3,000 plus acres to hunting within the last couple of months. I'm talking about prime hunting properties, all natural habitat along the Sac River between Colusa and Red Bluff. If this is the trade-off for hunting on a levee road somewhere, I think you got a decent deal. [A little conjecture of my own if you don't mind]
     
  9. buriani

    buriani Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,796
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    vacaville, Ca.
    The Sac River NWR has nothing at all to do with any trade. It was created FEDERALLY for preservation of riparian plants and associated animals and is basically only hunt able from a boat.(not easy for most) In FACT,that is comparing apples and oranges. This issue concerns STATE PUBLIC LANDS.
    You also know that posting signs does NOT make the law. FACTS are we lost roughly 5 miles of HISTORICALLY hunt able land and the opportunity to hunt it without all the demands needed to hunt the refuge system. It truly was FREE roam at its best. FACT--Unattached hunter LOST in this deal, plain and simple. Incidentally, the birds fly to and from food or refuge and are subject to hunting anywhere in between----another fact.
    I'm going to begin my search tomorrow for facts-who, what, when, where, and why. The FACT that this maneuver was not well PUBLICIZED, if at all, kind of bothers me since we do have avenues in our system of government to alert stake holders of radical change in public policy.
    BTW: There are a few hunters that indeed use dekes and call. I've even seen a robo whirling away on top of the levee--that was sad but LEGAL.
     
  10. Powder

    Powder Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,634
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Yuba City, CA
    comparing doves to ducks is like comparing whites to ...never mind. Maybe pass shoooting to you is waterfowl hunting...that's ok. To me, it's not! I'm not trying to argue with you, but if I was to introduce a newbee to the sport I'd make sure it was over decoys and calling...the way it should be. To each is their own...your intitled to your argument, but I dont' think that many on this forum are in favor of "sky busting" waterfowl from high atop a gravel road. :cool:
     

Share This Page