Department of Fish and Wildlife (AB 2402 (Huffman))

    Interesting bill...

    Quote

    This bill would rename the Department of Fish and Game the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and would make related changes. The bill would prohibit existing supplies, forms, insignias, signs, logos, uniforms, or emblems from being destroyed or changed as a result of changing the name of the Department of Fish and Game to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and would require their continued use until exhausted or unserviceable.


    The bill would require the Director of Fish and Game, in consultation with the Natural Resources Agency, to establish an independent science advisory panel to provide advice and recommendations to the department and the commission.


    The bill would require the department to develop and adopt a method to impose and collect entry pass fees onsite for visitors that are engaging in nonconsumptive uses, as defined, at state wildlife refuges and other lands managed by the department that are open to the public. The bill would require the department to modify its online processes for purchase of entry passes and warden stamps to make these systems user-friendly for nonconsumptive users.


    AB 2402 (Huffman): Department of Fish and Game: Fish and Game Commission: entitlements: fees: violations. (California Assembly Bill)

    Quote from Tailsurfer

    Change is never good.


    In California that's usually true.


    I just worry that the name change is part of an effort to undermine the relationship between the DFG and hunting.


    The other stuff in the bill I'm not so sure of.

    i like this part,

    The bill would require the department to develop and adopt a method to impose and collect entry pass fees onsite for visitors that are engaging in nonconsumptive uses, as defined, at state wildlife refuges and other lands managed by the department that are open to the public. The bill would require the department to modify its online processes for purchase of entry passes and warden stamps to make these systems user-friendly for nonconsumptive users.


    im sick of the kayakers and birdwatchers ,who pay nothing to use the ca waterfowl refuges using them for free when ,we the hunters and fisherman are paying for them .
    phil

    Quote from phil herranen

    i like this part,

    The bill would require the department to develop and adopt a method to impose and collect entry pass fees onsite for visitors that are engaging in nonconsumptive uses, as defined, at state wildlife refuges and other lands managed by the department that are open to the public. The bill would require the department to modify its online processes for purchase of entry passes and warden stamps to make these systems user-friendly for nonconsumptive users.


    im sick of the kayakers and birdwatchers ,who pay nothing to use the ca waterfowl refuges using them for free when ,we the hunters and fisherman are paying for them .
    phil


    I am not sure I want the State creating new revenue streams. I've heard they want(explored) a token system for using the beach.:crazy::crazy::crazy:

    Quote from ladvr

    I am not sure I want the State creating new revenue streams. I've heard they want(explored) a token system for using the beach.:crazy::crazy::crazy:


    That is what I was afraid of.


    New Jersey already charges $6 per day for visiting their beaches.


    I'd hate for something like that to happen in California.


    More taxes in California does not equate to more benefits. California is already billions of dollars in debt. So unfortunately any new form of taxation will inevitably be spent on that debt expense. Politicians are too greedy to let the money be used for it's intended purpose.


    Where there's a pile of money there will always be politicians looking to spend it on anything and everything.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.

Register a new account
Sign in now