Tuesday, October 3, 2017
More on Montana training regulations
Montana FWP announced that they were NOT going to pursue rule-making in this matter but were expecting that it would take the form of proposed legislation, which would be a comprehensive overhaul and total re-write of proposed regulations. In other words, they tossed the potato upstairs. It is now highly possible that the proposed legislation will not be ready until some time next year, and might never move out of committee to the floor for a vote.
HOWEVER, the FWP has asked for comments to assist in shaping the possible legislation and we should all put pen to paper (or get on our keyboards) to suggest some sensible permitting rules and process that would protect the wild bird resource and the ability to train on wild birds before and after the nesting season. With a formal permitting process in place the state would know how many trainers are training dogs on wild birds, where they are training, and how many dogs are being trained. It is my belief that this actual (not imagined) data will reveal that the 'problem' is largely imaginary.
I will post a link to the proper forms and a contact point as soon as I am able.
Meanwhile, you may continue training as always. Please have a good thought for those people who stood up and forced this frivolous rule making to take a more sensible course.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Meetings scheduled on Montana Dog Training regs
The Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks has released a schedule of statewide hearings as a result of a year or two ago missteps of dog trainers in Eastern Montana. Apparently, they believe that some regulation is in order. While some regulation isn't bad, the wrong regulation is disastrous. I am not the lead man on this topic but noticed this release in the Spokane Spokesman & Review and wanted to pass it on. If I've missed anyone, please forward it.
http://www.spokesman.com/
-
Oct. 2, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 4 headquarters at 4600
Giant Springs Rd., Great Falls
-
Oct. 2, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 5 headquarters at 2300 Lake Elmo Dr., Billings
-
Oct. 2, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 6 headquarters at 54078 US-2, Glasgow
-
Oct. 2, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 7 headquarters at 352 I-94 Business Loop, Miles City
-
Oct. 10, 6 p.m. at FWP headquarters at 1420 E. 6th Ave., Helena
-
Oct. 10, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 1 headquarters at 490 N. Meridian Rd., Kalispell
-
Oct. 10, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 2 headquarters at 3201 Spurgin Rd., Missoula
-
Oct. 10, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 3 headquarters at 1400 S. 19th Ave., Bozeman
If you are in Montana, please try to attend one of these meetings... it will only take an hour or so and they are in the evening, so it won't cut into hunting time.
See you there.
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Trouble in Bird Dog Paradise
I recently became aware of a threat to bird dog folks who live in or visit Montana and train on wild birds. You need to read this, then call Mike Lee at FWP - the number is: 406-444-4039
The Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is preparing to make dog training on wild birds essentially illegal without permission from the agency director. Conditions under which a "permit" might be acquired and the restrictions attached there to are not defined in the proposal.
The ruling that FWP is proposing to adopt is:
-
NEW RULE I PERMIT TO TRAIN DOGS IN UPLAND GAME BIRD
NESTING AREAS
The Fish and Wildlife Commission was also approached by bird hunters who were noticing a large decrease in the available birds during the hunting season. The commission in turn asked the department to do something to curtail the large-scale dog training.
MCA 87-4-915 (5)(a) Dogs may be trained in open fields at any time without permission of the director only if:
(i) live game birds are not killed or captured during training; and
(ii) the training is more than 1 mile from any bird nesting or management area or game preserve.
The language in the statute indicates that permission from the director is needed to train dogs in bird nesting areas, management areas, or game preserves. The statute does not describe the mechanism by which an individual may attain permission nor does it define what bird nesting areas, management areas, or game preserves are. The language in the proposed rule will provide for that and help define a permitting system for the activities in question.
4. Concerned persons may submit their data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed action in writing to: Enforcement Division, Attn: Mike Lee, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, P.O. Box 200701, Helena, Montana, 59620- 0701; or e-mail FWPDogTraining@mt.gov, and must be received no later than June 9, 2017.
5. If persons who are directly affected by the proposed action wish to express their data, views, or arguments orally or in writing at a public hearing, they must make written request for a hearing and submit this request along with any written comments to Mike Lee at the above address no later than May 26, 2017.
6. If the agency receives requests for a public hearing on the proposed action from either 10 percent or 25, whichever is less, of the persons directly affected by the proposed action; from the appropriate administrative rule review committee of the Legislature; from a governmental subdivision or agency; or from an association having not less than 25 members who will be directly affected, a hearing will be held at a later date. Notice of the hearing will be published in the Montana Administrative Register. Ten percent of those directly affected has been determined to be greater than 25 persons based on the number of people in Montana who bird hunt with bird dogs.
Back channel information...
This proposal apparently sprang into being at the behest of a small group of land owners in the Scobey area (in the far northeastern corner of Montana). Friction has been building between the landowners and a professional bird dog trainer. The land owners want to sell bird hunts and feel that the dog trainer scatters the birds while training in the pre-birdseason dog training period - July 15 to August 31. Add to this the apparently abrasive attitude of the trainer and there 'ya go - a new state law that will punish everyone.
More effective ways to disturb/scatter game birds prior to the season...
1. Build lots of new roads and fraking ponds/well sites, etc.
2. Fail to order enough local rainfall, or too much, or allow hail to fall on your hunting/ranching area when the birds are nesting.
3. Cut your hay, wheat, barley, etc. before nesting is completed. You will produce lots of dead/dying young game birds for the crows, vultures, and four footed consumers.
4. Spray pesticides and herbicides on the earth.
5. Take land out of CRP for crop production.
6. Eliminate ground cover and edge cover for game birds by discing and planting marginal ground.
Personally, I think running some dogs across the countryside is very far down from the top of the list. But it might help a few people at the expnse of many others.
I have been going to Montana to train may dogs every summer for most of the past decade. I run on private ground with the permission of the land owner. I put a little money into the local economy. It is great place to train. If I can't go there, I'll go to the Dakotas, Idaho, Alberta, Saskatchewan, or Manitoba.
There are more than a few people who derive a living from training bird dogs in Montana, and there are many people, professionals and amateurs alike, who go to the last best place for bird dogs and bird hunters in prder to train on real live game birds. Sadly, the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is attempting to make this ruling and avoid the process of holding hearings for public input prior to adoption of the new rules. Go to the department site and comment and call Mike Lee (and anyone else you know at FWD). If the phone lights up and enough comments are posted, perhaps this can be beaten back or modified to allow sensible use of the resource.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
California DFG throws West Coast striped bass under the bus...
- Increasing the daily limit from two stripers to six stripers
- Lower the minimum size limit from 18” to 12”
- Establish a South Delta catch limit of FORTY fish per day
- Allow taking in a number of coastal rivers south of SF Bay that have previously been off limits
Monday, June 6, 2011
Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development
Go here to read more: http://www.sportsmen4responsibleenergy.org/recommendations.html
Friday, February 26, 2010
A bad idea... please vote the poll
California State Senator Dean Florez, author of California SB 250 - the Mandatory Sterilization Bill - introduced a new bill this week, SB 1277, to establish an animal abuse registry. Is this a good idea? Go to PetPac to express your opinion...
Here’s what we know about SB 1277:
1. The millions in costs to set up the registry will be paid for by a new tax on pet food.
2. The sponsor of the bill, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, is known for its advocacy of pet guardianship and vegetarianism.
3. The author of the bill, Senator Dean Florez, has been the leading advocate for mandatory sterilization.
Please let your voice be heard on this important issue.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
SB250 beaten back for now...
I just got back from the Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing on SB 250. After about an hour of testimony and voting on several other bills, it was announced that Senator Dean Florez had withdrawn SB 250 and placed it in the "suspense " file. No supporters of the bill were present, as they must have been tipped off before hand. Two opposition spokespersons were allowed to speak, but only very briefly. An AKC representative spoke effectively about the adverse fiscal impact that would result from cancellation of all of the bench shows held in California. I can't remember what the NAIA representative had to say. Following that, the Committee Chairman, Kevin De Leon, asked if there were any supporters of SB 250 present (there were none) and then asked those who were opposed to SB 250 to stand. Nearly everyone present in the room then stood. However, none of us were allowed to announce our affiliations or to speak. I could not see how many were seated in the balcony, but there were about 100 to 150 people present in the room below the balcony where I was sitting. Nothing even close to the thousands present for the Senate Local Government hearing on AB 1634, in July of 2007!
Then, several DEMOCRATIC Assemblymembers rose to express opposition to the bill. One of them stated that he hoped that the people bringing these kinds of bills before the State Legislature would stop doing so. He also noted that these MSN options are available at the city and county level, and that it was inappropriate to deal with these issues at the statewide level.
I have to believe that the tide was turned against this bill by two events: (1) the June 9 story in the SF Chronicle about SB 250 having it's greatest impact on low income people, and (2) the release of the 2008 California Department of Public Health county animal shelter statistics, which showed that the increases in impounds and euthanasias were 11x higher in LA County than in all of the rest of the state put together.
This bill was very bad news for California dog owners. We hope that after this the bill will die, as did AB 1634 last year, and the subject of statewide mandatory spay and neuter will not arise again.
Shame on Senator Dean Florez for authoring and sponsoring this ill-informed, ignorant piece of legislation. The HSUS worked on this bill, and I believe may have actually authored or had substantial influence on it's creation. It certainly takes a page directly from their political playbook.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
SB250 closer to becoming law
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Politics as usual in California
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
ABC Atlanta on HSUS and their money... watch it!
Sorry, you cannot watch this video - it seems that the ABC affiliate in Atlanta has caved in to pressure from HSUS, removed this report from their archive, and demanded that YouTube remove it from their site under threat of copyright litigation. It is a sad day when the free press loses it's nerve. This was a fair and accurate report, and you can find a transcript of it HERE.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
SB250 is not going away - action needed!
So, if your dog is unlicensed, gets loose for any reason, or is the subject of any complaint, you are guilty, and your dog(s) will have to be altered - and you must pay for the surgery - before you get them back from the animal control agency.
There is no legal recourse, as the only appeal provided in SB250 is the animal control people who are charged with enforcing the law!
This is a Draconian piece of legislation that has the finger prints of the HSUS all over it, and reeks of politics, as the sponsor is leveling his sights on a run for Lt. Governor in the next election.
Write a letter (not an e-mail) and fax it to every politico in Sacramento, starting with your own state Senator. It is time to deal another defeat to HSUS.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The latest in sanity
SB 250's primary intent is to penalize owners of intact animals and force sterilization of an at-large or unlicensed dog or cat on a first offense - at the owner's sole expense. This is an unreasonable standard as even a responsible owner can have a single incident where an animal is let out by a meter reader, neighbor or faulty gate.
As amended on April 2; SB 250:
> Allows an unaltered license to be revoked if one citation is issued for a dog being at-large or stray. No legal resourse is provided. Appeals must be made to the animal control agency that is bringing the action against the owner. It also appears that ALL intact animals in an owner's care would be subject to forced sterilization on a single offence.
> Adds a new definition of "custodian" as follows; "Custodian" means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a dog or cat, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a dog or cat on the person's property for any period exceeding 30 days. "Custodian" does not include a licensing agency."
Existing state law already requires owners of intact animals to pay a license fee that is at least double that to license a sterilized animal (Food and Agriculture Code Section 30804.5); and provides for enhanced and graduated fines for owners whose intact dogs are impounded (Food and Agriculture Code Section 30804.7). These statutes are sufficient to incentivize owners to sterilize their animals and to address animal control concerns with specific intact animals who are repeatedly impounded.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
SB 250 - Mandatory Spay/Neuter in California is back!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
a petition to consider
PetPAC is a California-based pet owners advocacy group that is best-known for its efforts in coordinating resistance to a recurring piece of mandatory spay-neuter legislation most recently known as AB1634 -- and happily retired, at least for now.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
A quick note
There is a bill proposed in North Dakota that would dramatically alter the way pro trainers operate in North Dakota. It would change the date that pros can let dogs go on wild birds. I've created a blog that is in opposition to it and it needs to be signed and posted to all that can see it. We only have until tomorrow to gather names.
Tom Nygard
Click here and sign the petition
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
As close to politics as I want to get on this blog...

Friday, December 12, 2008
Thoughts on hunting and food
Friday, December 5, 2008
Pocketbook Animal Rights
The ‘Fart Tax’ and You
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net
As if there isn’t enough to worry about, the federal Environmental Protection Agency is telling us that cow farts are hurting the atmosphere and contributing to global warming.
You can stop laughing now.
It’s true. EPA actually is proposing to regulate farmers and ranchers to protect us from emissions from flatulent hogs and cows.
The deadline for comments on the proposed anti-fart regulations passed quietly a week ago.
If the regulations are approved, farmers and ranchers with at least 25 head of livestock will be taxed at $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per beef cow and $20 per hog.
Preposterous, you might say, and you’re right.
But we would call it something else. We would call it calculated and deliberate.
It stems directly from the animal rights agenda, which is aimed at eliminating animals from American life, including animals that produce meat, milk, eggs and wool. The goal is to reinvent America as a vegan vegetarian society.
We imagine that you are still laughing.
Preposterous! America loves a good t-bone, Big Macs, milkshakes and eggs fried in sausage drippings. Yum.
You are correct in thinking that Americans will not allow meat, eggs and dairy products to be removed from our lives. Surveys show that more than 95-percent of us eat meat and love every bite we can get.
What you may not be thinking is that no one is planning to give us that choice.
The following analysis can be seen as a case study on how the animal rights agenda actually is being implemented in America today. While this example is about the planned elimination of meat, eggs and dairy products from our lives, slight variations in the same strategy also are being used to eliminate companion animals, circuses, rodeos and hunting.
The animal rights groups may be evil personified, but their leaders aren’t dumb. They know that Americans will not give up animal products voluntarily, and they aren’t going to try the direct approach. They’d lose, and they know it.
Their tactic is to indirectly and gradually take away our ability to choose to eat meat.
The logical tactic is to make animal products too expensive for people to use and enjoy regularly, and also to make farming unprofitable and more hassle than it’s worth.
Did you notice how the price of beef skyrocketed after the “mad cow disease” scare a couple of years ago? In about a month, most cuts of beef went up by about two dollars a pound.
The reason is that meat producers were assessed for the cost of a massive federal inspection and regulatory program, and for developing a way to track each animal from the slaughterhouse back in time to the place of its birth.
Suddenly, a half-decent steak costs $10 a pound. If you’re lucky, you can find it on sale for $6.99 or so.
How many people can afford that?
For most people, a juicy t-bone steak probably always has been only an occasional treat, perhaps once or twice a month. Now, it has become once or twice a year.
Have you noticed how small the meat section has become in most grocery stores? Have you noticed how small the portions have become?
I define a good steak as one pound or larger and marbled with fat. Most steaks in the grocery store are a little more than half that size today, and the meat looks like the cow was anorexic.
Part of the reason is the high price of beef. Another part of it is the health scare about cholesterol.
While cholesterol is a valid health concern for many people, the animal rights groups are exploiting this and other health issues to try to make people afraid to eat much meat.
I recall a billboard along I-35 in Dallas that was a photo of former President Ronald Reagan, linking his meat eating preferences with Alzheimer’s disease. Guess who sponsored this crude and tasteless billboard? It wasn’t the American Medical Association. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) paid for the billboard.
If Alzheimer’s doesn’t get you, “mad cow” disease or cholesterol will. That’s the message.
Meat already is being heavily taxed because of the brief “mad cow” disease scare. Now, EPA wants to tax it more because of cow fart emissions.
What’s next? A tax on meat because of its health risks similar to the extra taxes on cigarettes?
Yep. Give ‘em time. It won’t be long before some governmental agency proposes a big tax on every pound of meat to pay for “prevention” programs in the schools and social services agencies, mirrored after the tobacco use prevention campaigns. You’ll know the time has come when you start to see news reports about meat eaters driving up the cost of health insurance.
Enter the $20 a pound t-bone steak.
Exit meat from many people’s budgets.
That’s the plan, but it doesn’t stop here. The next big step is the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), which currently is “voluntary” but is expected to become mandatory soon.
The NAIS plan is to license every location that produces poultry and livestock, and to assign each farm or ranch owner a unique identification number (that also applies to someone who owns a horse, or a couple of 4H goats). Then, at some point, every domestic animal and bird on American farms will be microchipped to determine its place of birth, and it will be tracked on computer all the way from the farm to the grocery store.
Guess how much that is going to cost? Guess who will pay for it?
Microchips can be purchased in bulk today for about $1.50 apiece. Suddenly the $3 frying chicken sold at the grocery store for $1.39 a pound has become a $4.50 chicken.
Add in the cost of bureaucracy and additional expenses for farmers, shippers and slaughterhouses, and it becomes a $6.50 chicken.
A lot of Americans won’t be able to afford to eat much chicken at those prices. It looks like a good time to invest your money in bean burrito company stock.
And that is precisely the plan!
The bureaucratic and compliance costs of NAIA will be enormous. Imagine what it will take to constantly track a truckload of 10,000 chickens individually on computers!
What’s the justification for these costs? “Bird flu,” of course, even though no form of this poultry disease that is communicable to humans has ever been found in the Americas.
The animal rights groups know exactly what they are doing. They find something scary about meat (Alzheimer’s disease, cholesterol, “Mad Cow” disease or “bird flu”) and then work quietly behind the scenes to exploit it. They have a lot of flunky newspaper and TV reporters in their pockets, and a lot of bureaucrats are smelling a lot of job security.
And a frying chicken will cost $6.50…for a small one.
The other side to NAIS is the burden to farmers and the rest of the food industry. Can you imagine the cost to a farmer of microchipping 100,000 chickens a month! How many employees will the farmer have to hire? How many fines will farmers face for microchips that come out? How many people will the trucking companies and slaughterhouses have to employ to scan a few million chickens a day for microchips?
Maybe it will be a $7.50 chicken, if we’re lucky.
“What’s for supper, Honey?”
“Two chicken McNuggets and beans, Sweetheart.”
That’s the plan.
NAIS will be applied first to cattle, hogs and poultry, but also to horses. A person who owns a couple of pleasure horses would have to report to the federal computer anytime they take a ride off of their property. Lord help them if they want to travel with their horses!
Many people believe dogs and cats will be next for NAIS.
Another prong in the animal rights plan is to regulate or eliminate what they allege are cruel “factory farming” practices, such as raising hens for egg production in battery cages. Farmers defend these practices, saying that all of the known needs of chickens are being met, and also that these methods keep the cost of food reasonable so that poor and working class people can afford to have better diets.
But the farmers lost a big battle last month with the overwhelming voter approval of Proposition 2 in California. Following this referendum, almost every egg farm in California will be put out of business.
Only free range chickens, or chickens kept in traditional henhouses, will be permissible. Expect the cost of a dozen eggs to jump to $3 or so. Make it $4 when you factor in NAIS, and $5 when you add the cost of “bird flu” insurance.
Don’t worry. You’ll enjoy bean McMuffins.
Look for a law resembling Proposition 2 to become nationwide within the next few years.
Of course, you can’t have a law without also having cops to enforce it. Every one of these programs will open up every farm in America to unannounced inspections, visits by animal cruelty officers and even vigilante spies from animal rights groups.
How much money will farmers have to spend on attorney fees, paying fines for technical violations (the chicken that lost its microchip), or rebuilding facilities, upgrading computer systems and hiring new employees?
How many farmers will say “enough is enough” and throw in the towel?
How many people will be able to afford to buy milk at $8 a gallon, eggs at $5 a dozen, steaks at $20 a pounds, hamburger at $10 or sausage at $12?
We saw the same thing happen in a different form this year, when HSUS exposed cruelty at a California slaughterhouse. A video showed a downer cow being pushed with a loader.
The firestorm of protest over that incident brought a host of new federal regulations and increased inspections of slaughterhouses, even though the incident was a clear violation of existing laws and regulations. The problem could have been solved easily and simply, but it wasn’t.
Instead, your steak went up another 50-cents a pound.
Dollars and cents is the most effective strategy the animal rights groups have discovered. Who cares if you want to eat meat if you can’t afford it!
Your choices become a moot point.
No matter where you look, activists and social reformers want to use money to limit your choices.
Environmentalists want gasoline to cost $20 a gallon, so you’ll use less of it.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) wants a hamburger to cost $15 at McDonalds, so that you’ll eat your veggie burgers and shut up.
They want gasoline to be expensive, because this will drive up the price of corn used for animal feed and fuel to transport all of America’s foodstuffs, and thus the price of meat for consumers. If gasoline rises to $10 a gallon, you won’t be eating much meat.
HSUS wants to make you pay a few thousand dollars for liability insurance to own a gun, so that you won’t be able to afford to go hunting. Thus, hunting can be eliminated without any politician ever having to cast a vote to do it.
And they also want the price of a puppy to be about $5,000, so that only rich people will be able to afford one and the vast majority of Americans will forget what it is like to love and be loved by a dog.
Wars have been won without ever firing a shot.
And the animal rights war will be won in your pocketbook, if you don’t wise up.
Friday, August 22, 2008
AB 1634 is dying, and shelter programs will likely benefit
The ordinance is supposed to take effect October 1 but animal control revenues have already plunged, an August 19 audit by City Controller Laura Chick shows.
According to the audit report, license sales and revenues have dropped substantially and the program’s budget is drenched in red ink.
Chick’s fiscal audit found the Los Angeles Animal Services Department has lost “millions of dollars” in revenue by failing to license and renew the licenses of hundreds of thousands of dogs.
A reported 27 animal control officers will have to be laid off, the city doesn’t have the money to open a new $14 million satellite shelter, there has been no money to pay for any of the required community outreach and no money is available to enforce the new ordinance
"If you don't put something behind (the ordinance), then it's a feel-good gesture, and we don't want to be a city that does empty feel-good gestures," City Controller Chick said. "I always think that legislators should research, not only the outcomes and impacts ... but should always research and ask questions about enforcement. Otherwise we, government, run the danger of enacting legislation that is not going to be enforced, which to me is the clearest of messages to our citizenry and our public -- go ahead and be a scofflaw, nothing's going to happen."
Los Angeles also has stalled on a plan to create satellite centers for spay and neuter procedures, as veterinarians simply aren’t signing up to do the job, the audit shows.

