Right but this is California so like it or not, that stuff gets stuck into every aspect of life somehow. Gotta play the game by the rules they set.
Ah, I think you're missing the point. No one is excluding anyone from hunting for being any of these things. Maybe a person wouldn't want to go hunting, as a buddy, with a member of a certain group, but if they want to go alone or with someone who doesn't care, no one is stopping them. The point is, why do they (DFW), or we, need to know this?
I believe they like diversity as in a mixture of L, B, G, T and Q, but not necessarily diversity of thought. And if the goal is protecting liberty and scientifically managing fish and game, criteria like (legal) immigrant background and gender identity should be irrelevant. I’d rather we achieve good outcomes without playing their game. It’s pretty absurd when diversity of unrelated criterions is considered to be of such value.
No lie there. IF (big if) it were really about wildlife management, there would be a law, or better, an amendment to the state constitution that reads something like this (keeping in mind I'm not a Lawyer nor have I ever played one on TV)... "All wildlife management decisions are the sole purview of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and shall be based ONLY on scientific study and/or wildlife population surveys conducted when the need to do so arises. Any and all hunting and fishing regulations, bag limits, and season dates shall be based solely on the aforementioned scientific studies and population surveys and it shall be illegal to base any fish or wildlife regulation on the basis of a public election or random regulation from any legislative body in the state. Migratory waterfowl regulations will be based on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's regulation framework."
