|
 |
 Copyright ©2003-2010 Anthony Canales |
|
 Anthony Canales is the President of the San Fernando Valley NRA Member’s Council. He works as a Quality Control Manager in Glendale, California. He is married with one son. The opinions expressed in 'News Briefs' belong solely to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Rifle Association of America or the NRA Members' Councils of California. |
|
Home
12-09-2009
12-18-2008
12-31-2007 |
|
February 23, 2009
Note: Adult Content Included.
To All, It seems that those clowns up in the California Legislature, lead by Governor Arnold "The Great Malenko" Schwarzenegger, have once again placed the interests of the state's political elites over those of the rest of us:
Insane Clown Posse: Who else but a group of cliquish Bozos would raise taxes (not revenues, if the usual effect of increased taxation is the ultimate result) would wallop the voting citizenry with tax increases during a serious recession? (After all, aren't taxes on cigarettes designed to reduce consumption? As such, increased sales taxes will most likely have some kind of reducing effect on sales transactions. Way to go, guys...).
Face it, a 12% increase on the sales tax itself, a .25% increase on personal income tax rates, and a near doubling of the car tax not only hammers middle income taxpayers, all but effectively absorbs any purported tax cuts that may be the result of the Obama Stimulate Patronage Act recently enacted by Congress.
Of course, extra taxes compounded across the entire distribution chain of firearms and ammunition, from impacts on wages to freight costs, will adversely impact firearms and ammunition costs across the board. The added expense, simply so that government programs can enjoy annual growth in a recession, will a depressing effect of some kind on gun ownership in California over the long run.
In fact, given that California is at least 10% of the population of the United States, and enjoys a much more prominent role in the figuring of US GDP, it may just be that California's Clown Posse has put a stake through the heart of the Obama Plan barely minutes after it emerged from it's coffin in a Denver photo op. In reality, one wonders whether Obama can afford to watch California's ( and other states) legislatures steal any of citizen's share from his patronage largesse. Should a few more states go the way of California, the first failure of the Administration of the 44th President may be upon us.
Link at: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-calendar21-2009feb21,0,5737226.story
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/increase-fee-delivery-2313945-business-licensing
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-stimulus-tax20-2009feb20,0,2716957.story?track=rss
http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/1639309.html?mi_rss=State+Politics
http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_hassett22_02-22-09_0NDBQJT_v16.4003053.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/185791
Net Loss of Hunting?: If one were to mosey over to a certain webpage at the US Fish & Wildlife Service, one will find posted for consideration a Draft Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan and it's associated Environmental Impact Statement for proposed development at California's Tejon Ranch.
One of the preliminary statements in the Habitat Conservation Plan designed by Tejon Ranch personnel (with a "helping hand" from the FWS) is the following-
"...1.1 OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND Tejon Ranch Corp (also referred to as TRC, Tejon Ranch, or Tejon) has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for a permit pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended (FESA), for incidental take of the Covered Species (defined in Section 1.4). To meet the requirements for a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, TRC (the legal entity that owns Tejon Ranch) has developed a multiple species habitat conservation plan (MSHCP). The requested term of the Incidental Take Permit (ITP) is 50 years. The FWS has provided TRC with technical assistance during the preparation of the MSHCP. The FWS will formally review the MSHCP as part of its permit decision under FESA.
The Covered Lands occur in Kern County and would encompass 141,886 acres of the 270,365- acre Ranch (Figure 1-1). 1 Activities covered by this MSHCP include ongoing Ranch operations(excluding hunting) and potential future development of two designated areas on and adjacent to Interstate 5. Covered Activities are discussed in Section 2.2. As shown in Figure 1-2, Tejon Ranch and the Covered Lands are situated between an assortment of existing public lands to the west and east; conserving 82% to 91% of Covered Lands as identified in this MSHCP and addressing the needs of Covered Species in the Tehachapi Mountains uplands through this MSHCP will likely benefit biological resources not only within the Covered Lands but within nearby and adjacent public lands as well by, for example, contributing to a broad, landscape linkage between public National Forest lands to the east and west and by conserving private lands available for development under the existing Kern County General Plan. Such potential development would result in a more fragmented landscape than would occur under the proposed MSHCP. ..." (Page 1 of 12, Introduction)
In other words, hunting on Tejon Ranch appears to not be covered under the Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, despite it being a "core" activity allegedly protected under the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement announced in 2008.
What is even odder is the following paragraph from the Introduction-
"...The 141,886-acre Covered Lands are entirely within the Tejon Ranch area covered by the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement, and the Covered Activities and conserved areas described in this MSHCP are consistent with those anticipated for the MSHCP Covered Lands in the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement (TRC et al. 2008). As shown in Figure 1-3, lands to be conserved as part of this MSHCP will be adjacent to lands outside Covered Lands but within Tejon Ranch ownership to be protected as part of the Tejon Ranch Land Use and Conservation Agreement (TRC et al. 2008), consistent with conservation biology principles calling for large, interconnected blocks of habitat that support the life history requirements of Covered Species...." (-Page 2 of 12, Introduction).
If it's true that approximately half of Tejon Ranch is to be covered under the MSHCP, and hunting is not covered as a permitted activity, it just may be that a plan currently subject to public comment is going to need massive hunter and firearms rights activist input if any kind of traditional hunting is to be maintained as the ranch transitions effectively into public control. Especially if such environmental groups who have shown periodic opposition to various kinds of hunting continue to hold sway on the Tejon Ranch Conservancy.
It's not like this question has not been raised before. The Fish & Wildlife Service's Environmental Impact Statement notes that the question relating to hunting not being a covered activity under the MSHCP was asked in previous public comment sessions. But then, as far as the Fish & Wildlife Service is concerned, pig depredation and rodent control activities can be carried out by contract hunters in lieu of public hunters (As with many things to the government, private sector costs are no object...).
In other words, it may just be that if Tejon Ranch truly intends to continue traditional hunting on the ranch, including the kind of "ancillary" depredation activities that come with varminters culling ground squirrels, then they are going to need help after years of being herded about by government agencies and special interest lobbyists. The first place to start could be for every hunter and firearms rights activist to write to the Fish & Wildlife Service, as part of the current public comment period, and ask for hunting to be included as a covered activity under the Habitat Conservation Plan. While the Fish & Wildlife Service website notes a final comment date of May 5, 2009, other sources claim that April 22, 2009 is the cutoff date for public comment. In any case, public comments in support of hunting at Tejon Ranch should be sent to:
E-mail:fw8tumshcp@fws.gov Mail:
Tel #- 916-414-6600 FAX#- 916-414-6713 or Steve Kirkland at the
Tel#- 805-644-3958 FAX#- 805-644-3958
Remember, these kind of plans are templates for private property expropriation for the future. If hunting bans become the template, then hunting will itself become an extinct species. Write now, before it is too late.
Links at: http://www.fws.gov/ventura/endangered/hconservation/hcp/hcfiles/TehachapiUpland/index.html
Holy Enron, Batman!: Paul Tharp writes at the New York Post about additional developments in the shareholder lawsuit against former Clinton Administration Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and a number of associates at Citigroup.
It seems that Rubin and Co. have spent the past 5 years or so "re-packaging toxic assets" in such a way as to hold them in offshore accounts away from prying eyes (at least until Citi's price crashed in the recent downturn.).
It will be interesting to see if Robert Rubin, his buddies, and his acolytes in the current Administration will be come as "non-grata" as Ken Lay and Co. did back in 2001. Or, for that matter, indicted and convicted. Oh well, some animals are more equal than others. Stay tuned.
Links at: http://www.nypost.com/seven/12042008/business/ponzi_scheme_at_citi_142511.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay
http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_hassett22_02-22-09_0NDBQJT_v16.4003053.html
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales SFVMC-NRA
Copyright 2009 Anthony Canales, except as noted. All rights reserved. |
|
