🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4j69lc$2uv@cloner3.netcom.com> chstarr@ix.netcom.com(Carl H.
Starrett II) writes: 
>
>In <3155AF59.5A61@tidepool.com> "Keith G. Wagner"
<keithw@tidepool.com>
>writes: 

>>According to DFG, "recreational hunting, would not be expected to
>>sufficiently reduce lion densities to result in lowering the
>>potential for human attacks."  They already have all the authority
>>they need to do their job *right*.
>
>Two things: (1) Provide proof of the source for your quote; and (2)
>Show me and 197 is limited to allowing recreational hunting.

(1) I can provide proof of the quote. DFG has stated it several times,
as a matter of fact. Draft Environmental Document on Mountain Lion
Hunting, 1987 and 1988, Senate Natural Resources Committee, Hearings on
SB28 1995, Letter to Sen. Tom Hayden, 1995, etc. Terry Mansfield, Chief
of Wildlife Management for the DFG, has made this claim publicly on
several occasions, as well. If you'd like, I can go back and give you a
few examples of the language used.

(2) I think the shoe is on the other foot here. I've posted listings of
possible management tools for lions that would and would not be allowed
under current law and under 197 several times.I've also posted that 197
does not seem to legalize *any* new tools but random killing of lions.
I would like to see just *one* example given by the pro-197 crowd of
any management tool that they think is now prohibited by law that they
believe 197 would legalize. I've offered this challenge before, and it
hasn't been answered.

Cris Waller
CrisW@ix.netcom.com