California December 15, 2022 Decision on Big Bore Airguns (Wild Pig) Results in Delay of Final Decision to Feb. 2023 Fish and Game Commission Meeting

Jump to latest Follow Reply
F

freethinkr

Member
Dec 5, 2022
11
2
Monterey, CA, USA
The California Fish and Game Commission, evaluating whether or not to approve big bore airguns (known in California as "BB devices") as an allowed method of take for CA wild pig hunting, decided at its December 15, 2022 meeting date to deliberate further on the issue (they didn't deny it, but didn't approve it yet either), and has scheduled what will likely be a final decision on the regulatory petition on this issue for the February 2023 meeting.

That can be seen here: https://fgc.ca.gov/Meetings/2023#feb

Technically the meeting will be "February 8-9, 2023." I don't yet know which of those dates the big bore airgun decision will fall on, but in advance of the February 2023 date you can send any comments on it as follows:

In your email, use the subject line:
Comment on Feb. 8-9, 2023 Agenda item TBD: Petition 2021-007: Request to revise authorized methods of take and designation for wild pig.

Send in your emails before 5:00 PM Pacific time, January 25, 2023 (that's the comment deadline that you'd need to have your written comments in by in order to ensure the Commissioners see your written comments before the February meeting).

(This is the petition that makes 'A Case for Big Bore BB Devices as a Method of Take for Wild Pig in California' as was shown in the December 2022 presentation to the Commission.)

Send to: [email protected] (this is the e-mail address for the California Fish and Game Commission)
cc to: [email protected]

Please send your thoughts regarding:

- whether or not you support the petition (I hope you do, but please describe in your email whether or not you support it)
- what sort of "BB devices" (these are what they call airguns in California law) you have used to successfully hunt wild pig, if you have done that.
- what are some examples of "big bore airguns" (what you would consider viable big bore BB devices) appropriate to hunt wild pig with? Some examples that have come up: Texan SS, Benjamin Bulldog (there are many more, please feel free to create a list that you feel is right in your e-mail to the Commission).
- examples of slugs used and grains for wild pig with airguns (I have recommended to staff that the minimum grains be 145 as a guideline) - Note: the Nosler eXTREME Ballistic Tip, which can be used with the Benjamin Bulldog .357, is 145-grain.
- example of what should be minimum power (for example, 800 fps at first shot?)

The proposal being considered by the Commission is:

"Alternatively, the Commission could make a change that would require .357 caliber minimum for BB devices to hunt wild boar (this would not alter any California lead free regulations), and clarify that hunting boar with centerfire cartridges with softnose or expanding projectiles of .30 caliber or greater in designation is permitted (lead free would still be required as the law currently requires if we are using centerfire rounds)."

Notably, in California, BB devices (airguns) do not require lead free rounds and do not have silencer / suppressor prohibitions (those California prohibitions / limitations only apply to actual firearms, and BB devices are not firearms. As such, the proposal suggests leaving intact the lead free hunting regulation that California is using with firearms and making no change to the law or regulation California has with BB devices with respect to the pellets or slugs allowed (as any type are allowed). The proposal is intended specifically and simply to gain Fish and Game Commission approval of BB devices, in particular big bore BB devices of .357 caliber minimum, as an allowed method of take for wild pig.

The proposal was first submitted to the FGC on May 23, 2017 (more than five and a half years ago), with engagement to the California Wildlife Resources Committee and California Fish and Game Commission on the subject annually thereafter, and a formal regulatory petition was submitted on the subject of big bore BB devices (airguns) as a method of take for wild pigs in California to the California Fish and Game Commission on May 10, 2021 with a Request to Correct Authority Cited (and request to waive 10 day response requirement) submitted on May 18, 2021. With California's SB 856 (the wild pig bill) becoming law on Sept. 22, 2022, the remaining element of the petition not addressed by SB 856, is found in that part of the regulatory petition (2021-007) which recommends "change that would require .357 caliber minimum for BB devices to hunt wild boar." Full implementation of this change (if the Commission approves it) would take place in mid-2024 unless the Commission or the Legislature decide to accelerate the process, though the first step is actually getting it approved.

Usually the Commission publishes the Zoom link at the top of the PDF agenda online a day or so before the meeting date, so that anyone can attend online.

To sign up to receive agendas and notices, you can go here: https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/CNRA/signup/35154
 
Last edited:
They denied the regulatory petition (Petition 2021-007: Request to revise authorized methods of take and designation for wild pig) today.


The part of my proposal that could be implemented consistent with SB 856 (a new state law having to do with wild pig), as it will be implemented by July 2024, is the part which reads,

"Alternatively, the Commission could make a change that would require .357 caliber minimum for BB devices to hunt wild boar.”

(This is essentially what I proposed in my regulatory petition to the Commission, or rather, that is the part which the Commission could have logically approved and deferred implementation of until 2024 consistent with the law known as SB 856, which recasts wild pig in California as "exotic game mammal.")


This would have allowed big bore BB devices to be used to take wild pig as “exotic game mammals” in 2024 when SB 856 is implemented.


The DFW's (California Department of Fish and Wildlife's) response to this very reasonable request was that the Department “believes (…) that method of take is not allowed.” Therefore, the Department does not believe additional clarification is needed in Section 353(c) as to the allowable methods of take of wild pig." This ignorant response was provided by the Department and was accepted by the Commission as a recommendation despite the fact that the Commission has the ability under Fish and Game Code to make a decision independent of the DFW on method of take that could be added or allowed.


I began this effort in 5/23/17 (regularly contacting the Fish and Game Commission over years), and submitted the petition on 5/10/2021. I went through Commission and Wildlife Resource Committee of my petition which was then sent to the Commission, which reviewed the petition favorably and sent it to the DFW for review which, I was told, would then send it back to the Commission for final action. The DFW, acting in fear and without any analysis, eventually replied saying “it's not allowed” without basis even though the Fish and Game Code explicitly grants the Commission the authority to do what I am proposing. Though I do not even own a BB device, I know it's important to have an innovative and new method of take.


I am saddened by this apparent refusal to innovate in the State and I was hopeful that at least one of the Commissioners would make a bold motion to either continue this item for further study, or better yet, to approve it but to defer implementation until 2024, which is consistent with my requests I have submitted previously to the Commission. I mentioned to the Commissioners that if the item ended up being denied today (and it was just formally denied by the Commission) that a notice of the action be sent to me in writing along with some method of appeal. We'll see if they formally send me anything in writing, or if I have to just figure out how to appeal it myself. Not sure what happens next there.

One of the Commissioners (Commissioner Zavaleta), prior to the motion being made for the decision, made some indication that she wouldn't be able to support a decision to approve the petition in any event because of the lead issue. Which is interesting since it has been very clear, on the Department of Fish and Wildlife website, and on all legal resources one can find, that hunters using BB devices as defined under California law (which people in many states call airguns) aren't subject to the lead-free requirements that hunters using actual firearms must use. (In California, if you are hunting with a firearm, you must use lead-free ammunition.) So in effect, the only rationale a Commissioner gave other than the Department's rationale (the Department's or DFW's rationale for recommending denial was "that method of take is not allowed" - which is why I was petitioning the Commission to approve it for the last few years) was that there was a "lead" concern - but the State has already been allowing (for the entire history of the State) hunters to use lead with airguns, and airguns don't perform well with lead-free pellets.

I pointed this out in commenting on the issue when another petitioner referenced lead free slugs in his petition asking for BB devices to be allowed with deer in California (unfortunately it's not yet feasible for BB devices to be allowed with deer in California either - the petitions written to date on it haven't been properly written and the Commission isn't receptive to them).

There was an individual author who petitioned the Fish and Game Commission (who initiated Petition 2022-10, which as I understand it was either denied or did not get further action in the past) - he remarked in part of his petition overview in somewhat broken English that "If airguns can’t be used for hunting cuz of lead they make non lead for the 50 cal it’s copper" and further indicated in his rationale section, "it would be nice to hunt deer different ways like airguns slugs non lead copper or arrow guns please." This made no sense whatsoever, as I explained to the Commission below in past correspondence (in part included below).

"The .50 cal slug he refers to," I explained to the Commission, "is a copper product made by only one company, which is perpetually out of stock because they cannot produce enough even to meet demand of those few who are interested in this unusual specialty product. This is a LeHigh product: https://lehighdefense.com/our-technologies/controlled-fracturing.html"
"Effectively for airguns the LeHigh slug is available only in .50 caliber since the dimensions of the other slugs they produce are not ideal for airguns of .357 (such as the Benjamin Bulldog) or .457 (such as the Texan SS), but even in .50 the LeHigh slug is not of any use to hunters as it is literally never in stock."

"Similarly, the EcoSlug is even more limited as not only is it frequently out of stock for sometimes months at a time but it only is suitable for certain types of airguns - Seneca / Sam Yang Dragon Claw .50 caliber."

"EcoSlug page:
http://www.eco-slug.com/orderpellets.htm"

"Finally, based on observations in the field from those who have used these lead free pellets with BB devices, their report produces a loud crack, and so apart from the issue of having to clean tin fragments out of a barrel, the noise is generally considered to be louder which is less advantageous to a hunter."

"It would make no sense to approve a new method of take for deer only to make it impossible for deer hunters to use this method of take because the one company that makes a copper slug can't produce it in quantities sufficient for the market, and to place those very few hunters who can somehow find such slugs at a disadvantage due to noise and impact on their equipment."

"As another comment I have on (2022-10), while I support the idea of the use of airguns (technically referred to as "BB devices" in California law) to be added as an additional method of take in California for animals such as deer and wild pig, it is important to note that the BB device in California is not defined as a firearm and is not subject to lead free pellet or slug limitations."

"This is an important distinction to make. There is no need for any new imposition or lead free restriction on ammunition related to BB devices. State law does not require it and furthermore, such slugs for the caliber one would hunt deer or pig with, do not exist (are not available in the market, as previously mentioned, with the exception of the LeHigh .50 ) for BB devices (airguns) if one in fact were to be authorized by the Commission to hunt with a BB device (airgun) in .357, .45, or .50 for deer or wild pig."

"To substantiate this claim, one can look at the comprehensive list of lead free pellet products for BB devices (airguns). There are lead free pellets for .177, .22, and .25, but not for "big bore" calibers of airguns such as .357, .45, and .50. This is not reason to delay approval of regulatory petitions for use of BB devices (airguns) as a method of take for deer in the case of this petition or for wild pig in the case of another, similar petition. No delay of approval of petitions such as these should be made just to "wait and see if more lead free products come on the market." Rather, approve the petitions now and allow people the maximum possible flexibility to use whatever kind of BB device slugs (whether lead or non-lead) they can find for a BB device (airgun) of appropriate caliber for deer or wild pig. The minimum caliber should be .357."

"Comprehensive list of airgun pellet products:"

"https://airgunpelletdb.com/a-to-z/"

In any event, the ignoramuses of California bureacracy are out in full force, don't expect any new innovation - certainly no new methods of take - to become available in California in the next five, ten, or twenty years - if ever. My Petition 2021-007: Request to revise authorized methods of take and designation for wild pig has been denied, and I suppose I'll appeal if I can figure out how to appeal that decision and do so simply but this doesn't change what California is.
 
Upvote 0
IMO the politicians in CA don't want any use of guns including for hunting. The regs for lead bullets all hunting is really just a law to discourage hunting because of higher ammo cost for worst performance in most cases. I can see the argument to use non-leaded ammo for varminting where some hunters just shoot many ground squirrels and leave the bodies for the scavengers. I think a study was done where some vultures were getting lead poisoning. I highly doubt there are any credible studies where shooting large game caused any significant health issues for other animals. Same for ammo buying having to go through an FFL, just raise cost, lower choices and discourages guns use and ownership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kraemer99 and 7Green
Upvote 0
Empathizing with the cause and with all due respect for Mr Free's efforts, I'm not sure this is a good battle to choose. Certainly high powered airguns can be and are used to humanely hunt larger game. But in CA there are bigger fish to fry, and if we are not careful we may be the fish.

In general lawmakers have poor understanding of guns, hunting, and related safety - especially in CA. They don't know a BB gun from a Kalashnikov. It is unlikely that many (or any) of the one party ruling class here has ever hunted or used a firearm. Demonstrating to them that there are airguns powerful enough to take larger game could lead to a slippery slope: How harmless are these airguns? Why are they not regulated more? Why are they legal here?

It could be better to have to hunt out of state in order to preserve existing BB gun rights. For example check out UK airgun rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smitty911, Scott_R_FL and qball
Upvote 0
I have made a new CA petition (Request) for Partial Reconsideration which I submitted to the Fish and Gand Commission's FGC email on Feb. 15, 2023 pursuant to California Government Code 11340.7(c) and the statute to which it refers (11340.6).

Functionally this was submitted as an appeal of the Commission's February denial of my big bore airgun petition to allow hunting of wild pig in CA (2021-007). The Commission has not yet responded to my Request for Reconsideration, despite that the Commission is legally required by law to respond to my new Petition (Request for Reconsideration), which as mentioned is functionally an appeal of the Commission's earlier decision.

As I have already told the Commission, please note that the Petition (Request) for Partial Reconsideration is complete. As noted in the Petition (Request for Partial Reconsideration), where I cited and quoted the California Government Code,

"(c) Any interested person may request a reconsideration of any part or all of a decision of any agency on any petition submitted. The request shall be submitted in accordance with Section 11340.6 and include the reason or reasons why an agency should reconsider its previous decision no later than 60 days after the date of the decision involved. The agency’s reconsideration of any matter relating to a petition shall be subject to subdivision (a)."

The California Fish and Game Commission was required to abide by the California Government Code and process my request for reconsideration but so far hasn't done so.

On February 15, 2023 I submitted the Petition for Partial Reconsideration (a request for reconsideration) to the Fish and Game Commission as is allowed to me under California Government Code 11340.7.

California Government Code has certain requirements. In part, California Government Code Sec. 11340.7 Subsection (a) states the following:
"Upon receipt of a petition requesting the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 11346), a state agency shall notify the petitioner in writing of the receipt and shall within 30 days deny the petition indicating why the agency has reached its decision on the merits of the petition in writing or schedule the matter for public hearing in accordance with the notice and hearing requirements of that article."
This section requires that the Commission notify me in writing of the Commission's receipt of my Petition for Partial Reconsideration (my request for reconsideration) which I sent in on Feb. 15, 2023. As one can see from reading California Government Code 11340.7 Subsection (c),"Any interested person may request a reconsideration of any part or all of a decision of any agency on any petition submitted. The request shall be submitted in accordance with Section 11340.6 and include the reason or reasons why an agency should reconsider its previous decision no later than 60 days after the date of the decision involved. The agency's reconsideration of any matter relating to a petition shall be subject to subdivision (a)."
For this reason, subsection (a) does require the Commission to notify me in writing of its receipt of my request for reconsideration, in the words of the law, "upon receipt." The Commission should therefore have already have notified me in writing of its receipt of my request for reconsideration on Thursday Feb. 16, 2023, the business day following the evening when I emailed in my request to the FGC. Since the Commission has not yet notified me in writing of its receipt of my request for reconsideration, I must assume that staff did not generate and send a letter as required by California Government Code.
I believe an appropriate remedy is for staff to generate this letter of receipt now, to send it to me and to follow the requirements remaining for the Commission under CA Gov. Code 11340.7 (and I have informed the Commission of this).
For all of what the FGC must do, see https://casetext.com/statute/califo...tion-on-petition-upon-receipt-by-state-agency

What this means:
- Within 30 days from Feb. 15, 2023 the FGC is required by law to either deny my request for reconsideration (a petition for partial reconsideration of an FGC decision), or set the matter for hearing.
- The Commission should have already notified me in writing of its receipt of my request, but it can do so now and that part of the requirement will be satisfied so far as I am concerned.
- The Commission must follow the law and process my request for reconsideration. The fact that the Commission already reached a decision at its February meeting does not excuse the Commission from having to either deny my request for reconsideration (a petition for partial reconsideration of an FGC decision), or set the matter for hearing.
- The request for reconsideration is not a matter to be decided by the DFW (Department). By law, it is a Commission decision.
- Finally, the Request for Reconsideration (functionally an administrative appeal process back to the Commission) does not preclude me from later taking up the matter in court if I desire, as the law expressly states that pursuit of reconsideration does not keep the petitioner from following up in court on the matter.
 
Upvote 0
Kim said:
Empathizing with the cause and with all due respect for Mr Free's efforts, I'm not sure this is a good battle to choose. Certainly high powered airguns can be and are used to humanely hunt larger game. But in CA there are bigger fish to fry, and if we are not careful we may be the fish.

In general lawmakers have poor understanding of guns, hunting, and related safety - especially in CA. They don't know a BB gun from a Kalashnikov. It is unlikely that many (or any) of the one party ruling class here has ever hunted or used a firearm. Demonstrating to them that there are airguns powerful enough to take larger game could lead to a slippery slope: How harmless are these airguns? Why are they not regulated more? Why are they legal here?

It could be better to have to hunt out of state in order to preserve existing BB gun rights. For example check out UK airgun rights.
Click to expand...
I'm coming to this party a touch late but with the advent of semi-auto/full auto airguns, I think the hammer is about to fall and it's not going to be good for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: qball
Upvote 0
HogKiller said:
I'm coming to this party a touch late but with the advent of semi-auto/full auto airguns, I think the hammer is about to fall and it's not going to be good for us.
Click to expand...


There is always “that guy” ruins things for everyone………worst ones will use the “selfless” guise of “I’m only doing it for you and the great good of airgun community”.


Obviously the “few” of us who enjoy shooting our BB guns in our yards don’t count or matter.
 
Upvote 0
The state had best get off their arses because they have a problem about to bite them in the butt. I was driving to my Ground Squirrel permission at 0730 on 7.10.23, in a moderately populated area with a nice part, and I glanced over and what did I see, but a HUGE Hog, now I'm no expert but I was a good 200+ yards away and it was HUGE. Kids play in that park and you know darn well that were there is one, there are 50 more. I was on the 4 lane road and the hog was down a bit to left of the parks name about 8 o'clock. I just did some research and it seems the problem HAS gotten worse and of course the "oh, the pigs were here first" BS is all over the threads, just wait for the reality check.

1689186076554.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: qball
Upvote 0
HogKiller said:
The state had best get off their arses because they have a problem about to bite them in the butt. I was driving to my Ground Squirrel permission at 0730 on 7.10.23, in a moderately populated area with a nice part, and I glanced over and what did I see, but a HUGE Hog, now I'm no expert but I was a good 200+ yards away and it was HUGE. Kids play in that park and you know darn well that were there is one, there are 50 more. I was on the 4 lane road and the hog was down a bit to left of the parks name about 8 o'clock. I just did some research and it seems the problem HAS gotten worse and of course the "oh, the pigs were here first" BS is all over the threads, just wait for the reality check.

View attachment 372201
Click to expand...

Hogs can be trapped, it’s far more efficient. Plus it’s CA, someone special has to die before they will do anything. If I want to hunt hogs I’ll bust out the 308, they won’t allow shooting of firearms near residential areas neither will they allow airguns powerful enough to kill a hog.

While we all have this dream of sniping hogs with our airguns but it simply ain’t gonna happen!
 
Upvote 0
qball said:
Hogs can be trapped, it’s far more efficient. Plus it’s CA, someone special has to die before they will do anything. If I want to hunt hogs I’ll bust out the 308, they won’t allow shooting of firearms near residential areas neither will they allow airguns powerful enough to kill a hog.

While we all have this dream of sniping hogs with our airguns but it simply ain’t gonna happen!
Click to expand...
Well of course people are going to have to be killed or maimed for action to be taken. I have a lousy 300BLK that should do the job. But reading the comments of the fools that have zero idea of what they are in for is interesting. In all honesty, I've never shot anything over the size of a ground squirrel. I've seen videos of trappings and the tasty BBQ following. But they'd best get their acts in
 
  • Like
Reactions: qball
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu