Gents, if you want to get hung up on sky busting, trespassing and unwonted waste,you are missing the point.
I do not understand your point; how is preventing all of these negative things positive? I think it is
the point. You see, the government has an obligation to protect their birds animals, and uphold the rights of private property. Without that, we do not have any birds, and we have no private property protections (which is besides the point).
This is the loss of public hunting land without so much as one offer to the public to input. All those other reasons come under law enforcement and ethics and are CONJECTURE WITHOUT DATA/PROOF. THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
The government makes decisions all the time without your input. To oppose yet another point you make, is the ethical aspect of it all. If a hunter is hunting unethically, it IS the governing agencies job to put an end to it; this in my opinion will end it (at least North of Oswald). There is no law agency that will come in and make levee hunters shoot any closer than they do....it just wont/can't happen. In regards to your data/proof: I cannot name a study that has been conducted, but I can re-state what I have seen in the past. That is good enough proof for me. Furthermore, having seen some levee hunter chasing a cripple in my rice field makes me more than a little upset when I am trying to hunt ducks.
If this slide through without a wrinkle, what's next??? This is a DEMOCRACY and the government is to serve the public good not the special $$$interest of rice blind owners who come in after the fact and now want to take away for their own selfishness.
Their own selfishness? I think you have it backwards! Rice hunters pay a lot of their own money to hunt their fields. Levee hunters on the other hand do NOT pay a dime and go to the levee and mess with the birds working rice fields; I have seen it...it has happened to me. Lastly, what is this "special $$$interest rice blind owners" all about? Sure they have an interest in getting the levee shooters off the levee...just as many others do! I like your slippery slope argument. "What next if they take this?" I would like to turn it around on you though. What next if we continue to allow the bad practices of most levee hunters? If a levee shooter is allowed to shoot a bird and not harvest it, do we allow them to keep shooting untill they get a limit? Do we let them keep sky-busting untill the birds fly at 150 yards? It is happening now with snow geese--they are flying higher and higher all the time. Lastly, hunters are the extremely small population in California. How good would it look if we had a local news channel doing a story on shooters shooting birds and not retrieving them? If you shoot a bird and it lands on either side of the levee...retrieving it (on either side) is illegal.
Much like a new buyer of a home next to an established airport who then sues because of noise. The rice blinds are trying to move the airport, so to speak. THIS SHOULD CONCERN EVERY PUBLIC HUNTER because any special interest can and will make offers to the DFG and take away YOUR HUNTING.
I do not see the big deal about shooting passing birds on the levee. Is that your idea of hunting? I will be honest and say I have never had to hunt the refuge (though, I will try and do it this year), but that is hunting. Putting out your dekes, and calling the birds into your spread. Pass shooting is merely shooting trap....except you often cripple birds that die without being harvested. Rice fields are not that expensive, and allow hunting 7 days a week. If you cannot afford it, there are numerous refuges around the area you can try. All this is an effort to protect the birds....if it was the big rice field money...you would have every levee in Northern California closed off....something I can only hope will happen anyways.
You may be the exception rather than the rule in hunting ethically from the levees, but, in my opinion, and pardon the cliche', a few rotten apples spoils the basket.