Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Hunting and Fishing (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   CWA is opposing AB 711 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=818668)

MJB 09-05-2013 10:15 AM

CWA is opposing AB 711
 
Just got the call from the Pres. of CWA they are putting a letter together to be posted TODAY opposing AB 711. Send them an email thanking them for there opposition to the bill.

Good job guys!!!

See standing up for your rights can work!!!

Wideflange 09-05-2013 10:29 AM

Lets hope its an actual OPPOSE letter and not a neutral or weak response...

lewdogg21 09-05-2013 10:33 AM

How about they Fire that Mark Hennelly who made that deal in the first place?

Manolito 09-05-2013 10:34 AM

Mark Hennelly <Mhennelly@calwaterfowl.org>
12:38 PM (21 hours ago)
to me

Thanks for your input on AB 711. Regarding the waterfowl lead shot data, please see this summary http://www.fws.gov/cno/news/2000/2000-177.htm

Mark Hennelly

Vice President, Legislative Affairs and Public Policy

California Waterfowl

(916) 648-1406 ext 105

mhennelly@calwaterfowl.org

1346 Blue Oaks Blvd.

Roseville, CA 95678

fax (916) 648-1665

Visit us on the web at www.calwaterfowl.org!

I receoved this 21 hours ago and they said nothing about backing the opposition of 117.


They are not united in my thoughts and should be remembered as the hunting group that broke from the ranks.

This group only gets 3% of its operating revenue from members. The rest is grants and donations. Look at who they are in bed with including California State Government and Federal Government. Then ask yourself why they chose to look the other way on lead for hunting big game.

Bill

taperxz 09-05-2013 10:37 AM

There is no way i am going to "thank them"

That would be the same as my best friend hitting on my wife right in front of my face and then me thanking him for not taking her to bed. :rolleyes: Seriously!

MJB 09-05-2013 10:37 AM

No they are opposing the bill got it from John Carlson directly.

I didn't think I would hear from them my faith has been restored!! And a direct call no less no email but a personal call!!

Thanks John

MJB 09-05-2013 10:40 AM

Taper if you did I would be disapointed in you. No joke someone needs to hold them to the fire just not me:)

Wideflange 09-05-2013 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz (Post 12238071)
There is no way i am going to "thank them"

That would be the same as my best friend hitting on my wife right in front of my face and then me thanking him for not taking her to bed. :rolleyes: Seriously!


This^^

"Yeah, thanks for not knocking up mu ol lady".......NOT

huntandski 09-05-2013 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lewdogg21 (Post 12238034)
How about they Fire that Paul Guy who made that deal in the first place?

agreed

lewdogg21 09-05-2013 10:59 AM

^^^I had the name wrong and I edited my post. Paul is with the NRA. doh!


I have a collections of various gun and hunting org/club stickers on my garage fridge. I pulled the CWA sticker off today and tossed it in the trash where it will remain.

Whiterabbit 09-05-2013 11:10 AM

they still reversed their position, and need to be thanked. Otherwise they capitulate and you still have your hate. Next time, they will not capitulate.

So send your thanks, send your email, brief, and move on. Leave your sticker in the trash and watch them for the next go around. But thank them for reversing their opinion.

taperxz 09-05-2013 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiterabbit (Post 12238305)
they still reversed their position, and need to be thanked. Otherwise they capitulate and you still have your hate. Next time, they will not capitulate.

So send your thanks, send your email, brief, and move on. Leave your sticker in the trash and watch them for the next go around. But thank them for reversing their opinion.

NO!

DSMeyer 09-05-2013 11:27 AM

Nope. Can't be on the damn fence and change your mind when it heats up. I can guarantee that their first impression was "screw them hunters, we've had a lead ban for decades" this was just in spite, then realized that the evidence wasn't there to support condor and human toxicity. But emotions got the better of the group and were being politically (BS) correct and taking a default neutral position, which might as well be a supporting vote.
So screw them! Either have the nads to stay with an emotional conviction or sack up and PUBLICALY announce your bad decision and why your reversing that decision, then don't make the same mistake again.

MJB 09-05-2013 11:34 AM

What changed their mind was everyone who contacted them and stated all the reasons above but mainly no more money!!

I don't blame one person for no longer supporting them......one would think we all stand together!!

Kestryll 09-05-2013 11:46 AM

I seriously hope you are right that they are opposing it, I will reserve judgment until the end of today to see if there is follow through on this.

Manolito 09-05-2013 11:47 AM

This is how hunters get things done by standing together CWA didn't know that. They just got new people at the top after making a mess of things now this.

No thanks coming from this hunter.

spectr17 09-05-2013 11:50 AM

I need a drink, I can't believe Imma agreeing with Taperz.

Screw CWA. To even think they could sit this one out is ridiculous. In bed is the right analogy, CWA just got shone the bedroom and was taking off her dress when dad came home. You really think she's gonna keep that dress on forever?

Someone help me get the knife out of my back now.

lewdogg21 09-05-2013 1:45 PM

I haven't been on their FB page in the last 4-5 hours but yesterday I posted a shame on you, blah blah blah and some guy I don't know liked it. I should have given a shoutout to calguns on there and said 100,000 california gun owners now know you stand with the anti's or something like that. I probably still will.

MJB 09-05-2013 2:32 PM

CWA's OPPOSES AB 711

Protecting our hunting heritage is an important part of California Waterfowl’s mission – we have worked tirelessly to defeat or neutralize several bills affecting gun rights and use this year, as well as fighting to preserve water for managed wetlands and surrogate wetlands in the rice.

For the record, CWA has NEVER supported AB 711, or any of the other non-lead ammunition bills that have been considered by the Legislature.

We agree that the science does not support extending the ban to all hunting statewide and are sending letters of opposition to the Governor and legislature regarding AB 711.

John Carlson, Jr.

President


California Waterfowl Association

jcarlson@calwaterfowl.org

zio707 09-05-2013 3:02 PM

Cool, and please no offense... is there a link where CWA offically annouces this on their home page, in the news, or somewhere else so that the public can see the "new" official stance... all I'm seeing is the same email on multiple hunting forums.

Google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=CWA+...ient=firefox-a

I've been supporting CWA for awhile now, attending the fund raising dinner by my neck of the woods every year, etc. so I do have an interest in what direction they're swaying.

Whiterabbit 09-05-2013 3:04 PM

yes. And please promptly remove the "we've been betrayed by the CWA" message at the top of the calguns main page.

....AFTER said letters are made public.

lewdogg21 09-05-2013 3:08 PM

It's not on their facebook page. Just more stupid photos of their dove hunt...

jmonte35 09-05-2013 3:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiterabbit (Post 12239927)
yes. And please promptly remove the "we've been betrayed by the CWA" message at the top of the calguns main page.

....AFTER said letters are made public.

ummmm...no probably not gonna happen....it was those posts that likely resulted in this decision....sometimes it's good to have reminders so history doesn't repeat itself :cheers2:

Dano3467 09-05-2013 3:23 PM

They need a public format coming out party !

Then will know !

Whiterabbit 09-05-2013 3:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmonte35 (Post 12239981)
ummmm...no probably not gonna happen....it was those posts that likely resulted in this decision....sometimes it's good to have reminders so history doesn't repeat itself :cheers2:

Cool. Just like when you get a 2-point traffic ticket, you pay the fine to correct the offense. Then your insurance goes up so you have YEARS of penalization for making a mistake.

OR, once they correct their mistake, the debt is considered settled.

The choice is certainly ours.

jmonte35 09-05-2013 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiterabbit (Post 12240208)
Cool. Just like when you get a 2-point traffic ticket, you pay the fine to correct the offense. Then your insurance goes up so you have YEARS of penalization for making a mistake.

OR, once they correct their mistake, the debt is considered settled.

The choice is certainly ours.

Huh??

I have a better one for you.....

Do you forgive your best friend for hitting on your wife and just before he bangs her you catch them. He then decides not to bang your wife.....do you forgive him???

Edit...I guess taper already said this my bad. Lol.

By the way your first reference makes sense. Get caught speeding pay the price. Lets get it straight they were caught speeding now have changed their ways and are working their way through removing the points. Thanks for making my point. And in my opinion traffic school is not an option. :-)

MJB 09-05-2013 4:20 PM

I called John on his cell phone and asked for a link for the letter I should hear back tomorrow.

Patience boys these new steps take time when you think you were right then you have to eat some crow!!

Whiterabbit 09-05-2013 4:24 PM

the analogy only works if you burn the bridge. Reset everything, fast forward one year, another legislator re-introduces AB711:

CWA is still around, they still have members, and they can still support, oppose, or be neutral on the bill.

In MY analogy, I recognize that we cannot burn bridges because I want CWA support for the next go around (they will of course be watched closely).

In YOUR analogy we have to assume your best friend cannot be in a position to cause damage anymore, then we cut ties and burn the bridge.

In short, your analogy doesn't work. Not unless your best friend is someone you still have to work with for the rest of your life.

Kestryll 09-05-2013 4:38 PM

I have registered on the refuge forum to request that the message posted there be posted on their FB page and/or home page but am still waiting for it to go through.

As much as I am happy they are coming around there are a few issues that I have. Posting on the forum is good but it's not specifically a public notice, a page like their FB page or home page is their 'face' and it needs to be where it can be seen.

Why is there a discrepancy in the position as related by the President an the Vice President?
Which one is truly speaking for the org?

Hopefully they make this a public statement quickly and we can get on with fighting this bill and others as a united front.

huntandski 09-05-2013 4:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiterabbit (Post 12240523)
the analogy only works if you burn the bridge. Reset everything, fast forward one year, another legislator re-introduces AB711:

CWA is still around, they still have members, and they can still support, oppose, or be neutral on the bill.

In MY analogy, I recognize that we cannot burn bridges because I want CWA support for the next go around (they will of course be watched closely).

In YOUR analogy we have to assume your best friend cannot be in a position to cause damage anymore, then we cut ties and burn the bridge.

In short, your analogy doesn't work. Not unless your best friend is someone you still have to work with for the rest of your life.


Well put. Don't forgive them, but be respectful. We can't afford to have a group like this against us.

taperxz 09-05-2013 5:00 PM

CWA knows gosh darn well that lead is more effective than steel or even some of the alternatives.

This is political!! They know that the cripple rate of ducks is much higher with the use of steel shot compared to lead. There should be no excuse for this org. to even think about a lead ban on hunting. They're the ones who KNOW lead is a more effective, humane use of a projectile.

taperxz 09-05-2013 5:07 PM

Quote:

CWA Position on AB 711

Protecting our hunting heritage is an important part of California Waterfowl’s mission – we have worked tirelessly to defeat or neutralize several bills affecting gun rights and use this year, as well as fighting to preserve water for managed wetlands and surrogate wetlands in the rice.

For the record, CWA has NEVER supported AB 711, or any of the other non-lead ammunition bills that have been considered by the Legislature.

We agree that the science does not support extending the ban to all hunting statewide and are sending letters of opposition to the Governor and legislature regarding AB 711.

John Carlson, Jr.
President
California Waterfowl Association
jcarlson@calwaterfowl.org

Notice how they will not admit to opposing it in the recent past however or like the other letter said that they were neutral.

hermosabeach 09-05-2013 5:51 PM

What a difference a day makes.

Their reply went from neutral to against.

Here is the last email I received

--

On Sep 5, 2013, at 12:35, John Carlson <Jcarlson@calwaterfowl.org> wrote:

CWA Position on AB 711

Protecting our hunting heritage is an important part of California Waterfowl’s mission – we have worked tirelessly to defeat or neutralize several bills affecting gun rights and use this year, as well as fighting to preserve water for managed wetlands and surrogate wetlands in the rice.

For the record, CWA has NEVER supported AB 711, or any of the other non-lead ammunition bills that have been considered by the Legislature.

We agree that the science does not support extending the ban to all hunting statewide and are sending letters of opposition to the Governor and legislature regarding AB 711.

John Carlson, Jr.
President
California Waterfowl Association
jcarlson@calwaterfowl.org

spectr17 09-05-2013 10:11 PM

Tell em whatever it takes to keep that banquet money rolling in by god. :D

MJB 09-06-2013 2:29 PM

They are not on the list.....

Whiterabbit 09-06-2013 2:36 PM

not on WHAT list. Have the letters of opposition been posted yet?

chicoredneck 09-06-2013 6:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJB (Post 12247470)
They are not on the list.....

I would like to know as well, what list?

This is an attempt at divide an conquer by those who oppose us. Either our opposition started a false rumor to insight infighting, or they are bribing (obviously and most likely) hunting and conservation organizations in order to lessen our collective voice. Unfortunately, it apears that CWA is so shortsighted and strategically lacking that it fell for such a bribe. I also want to know if any of the other organizations took the bait such as NWTF, RMEF, RMMF, etc.

Either way, we need to make sure that we continue to make them support our position, and not theirs. Even though it appears they have corrected their stance or at least set the record straight, we should still continue to communicate our desire that they make it very publicly known to the non-hunting and shooting community that they are opposed to AB711.

We must stay united and avoid as much infighting as possible in order to maintain our focus on our opposition. After AB711 is (hopefully) defeated however, CWA will no longer see any of my volunteered time of which they have received much of in the past. But for now, I support them if they continue their new stance to oppose AB711, because we need all the help we can get.

MJB 09-06-2013 7:31 PM

The opposition list on the bill.....CWA only sent it out today. John is sending me the letter via email.

ElvenSoul 09-06-2013 7:44 PM

Well some good news at least!

MJB 09-07-2013 6:07 AM

I got the letter from John will post in a few.........the bill is up to a third reading on Monday keep emailing, faxing & calling!

Here is the bill
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/...sen_floor.html


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.