California AB 3030 to cut off 30% of CA public lands

sierrahunter

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
47
See link below to send note to your State Senator (if you live in the commie State of CA).
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,936
Location
Helena
Better to line out the whole subsection.

And there is a push in the conservation community to provide better outreach to people of color. We've had some really good discussions here on HT about it. Bringing more kids into the outdoors from impoverished communities is worthy goal, IMO.

Section 2, sub d:

(d) It is further the goal of the state to improve access to nature for all people in the state and to provide for recreational and educational opportunities, including wildlife-dependent recreational activities, as defined in Section 1571 of the Fish and Game Code, with a specific emphasis on increasing access for communities of color and economically disadvantaged communities. Opportunities for improved access include existing and new opportunities.

@sierrahunter do you have anything more on the concerns being raised in this bill? I'm having a tough time seeing a boogeyman, but it's the CA legislature, so the likelihood of poorly written legislation is high.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,936
Location
Helena
All I see are a bunch of goals with no outlined actions. Seems overly vague as to the the “how”. I guess where politicians are concerned, I would be suspicious too.
Seems kind of like a RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) that outlines the goal, but leaves it up to agencies as to implement. It also includes federally protected lands in the 30% standard. So anything that's National Park, Monument, Refuge or Wilderness should count towards it.

Certainly could use some cleaner language.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
7,800
Location
Aurora, CO ⇄ Boston, MA
Huh....

The bill would declare it a further goal of the state to improve access to nature for all people in the state and to provide for recreational and educational opportunities, including wildlife-dependent recreational activities, with a specific emphasis on increasing access for communities of color and economically disadvantaged communities.

I'm reading if you qualify for SNAP benefits you get a reduced price deer tag or fishing license, or something along those lines.

(o) The International Union for Conservation of Nature has established guidance related to access, resource use, and visitation in protected areas, providing that if activities are compatible with a protected area’s objectives, and they are permitted within the terms governing the protected area, the activities may be allowed.

It's that the basic intent of USFWS refuges where you are allowed to hunt.
 

glass eye

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
1,449
Location
El Centro, CA
And there is a push in the conservation community to provide better outreach to people of color. We've had some really good discussions here on HT about it. Bringing more kids into the outdoors from impoverished communities is worthy goal, IMO.
Absolutely, but I don't see anywhere signs that say "whites only" I don't see any access being denied to people of color. If anyone wants to hunt or fish they can.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,936
Location
Helena
Absolutely, but I don't see anywhere signs that say "whites only" I don't see any access being denied to people of color. If anyone wants to hunt or fish they can.
True, and that's not what the legislation says either. It recognizes that people of color participate in outdoor recreation at a lower level than white folks do and seeks to change that by providing direction to agencies. Kind of tough for a kid living in an inner city to get out for trout & deer.
 

glass eye

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
1,449
Location
El Centro, CA
True, and that's not what the legislation says either. It recognizes that people of color participate in outdoor recreation at a lower level than white folks do and seeks to change that by providing direction to agencies. Kind of tough for a kid living in an inner city to get out for trout & deer.
Access is a poor choice of words then. Perhaps it should be worded EXPOSURE to the outdoors. But the only way you can MAKE someone spend time outdoors is if schools have field trips to wildlife areas and national parks. I don't believe access is an issue, the issue is the exposure and desire.

Ps. CA has a very large Asian community and many of them are active hunters and fisherman. Most of them live in the inner cities but still make it out to the wilds. Access is not the problem. It's a cultural issue.
 
Last edited:

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,936
Location
Helena
Access is a poor choice of words then. Perhaps it should be worded EXPOSURE to the outdoors. But the only way you can MAKE someone spend time outdoors is if schools have field trips to wildlife areas and national parks. I don't believe access is an issue, the issue is the exposure and desire.

Ps. CA has a very large Asian community and many of them are active hunters and fisherman. Most of them live in the inner cities but still make it out to the wilds. Access is not the problem. It's a cultural issue.
I think that's a really solid point. I'd like to see Cal G&F do some outreach to underserved communities to get more folks hunting & fishing. That's a laudable goal. No doubt you'll be going up against cultural bias.

I wonder as well what economic role is in this issue.
 

jryoung

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
4,730
Location
Unable to determine due to velocity
I think that's a really solid point. I'd like to see Cal G&F do some outreach to underserved communities to get more folks hunting & fishing. That's a laudable goal. No doubt you'll be going up against cultural bias.

I wonder as well what economic role is in this issue.
This is a cool program that targets many of the urban areas.


Hunters and Anglers are particularly weary of this bill because of past issues with the MPA and most recently the ban of hunting in the Castle Mountains National Monument. Without clarification of the vagueness and explicitly calling out no loss of hunting and angling access it leaving interpretation open....which if said closures happened would more severely limit access to communities of color. We have some incredible hunters and anglers in the latino and hmong/vietnamese communities in particular. Recent amendments help, but leaves a lot to be desired. My friend summarized it well:

I think the recent amendments are the author trying to appease us (the hunting/fishing crowd) while not offending the supporters, who have members with blurrier lines between environmentalism and animal rights...
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,936
Location
Helena
Thanks JR.

It always amazes me, the differences between CA & other western states, when it comes to this stuff. Good luck with more amendments.
 
Top