CO Mountain Lion Ballot Initiative: Continuous Updates

[perma]

saw this over on rokslide

Current CPW commissioners promoting proposition 127 with lies.

Current CPW commissioners wrote an opinion piece published in the Durango Herald and I suspect elsewhere. The pro prop 127 piece by the commissioners is a disgrace and should disqualify them from public service. The piece is filled with false, intentionally misleading information, and blatant...

rokslide.com

sounds like senator dylan roberts, who is seemingly hunters strongest ally in this state anymore, has had this brought to his attentions and he is concerned about it.

i suggest people send many e-mails and phone calls to representatives, cpw leadership, and the AG. this feels illegal - i'd be curious if anyone with some legal expertise would agree.

That’s wild. I saw on many CPW meetings where they chose to not take a stance on this.

 

[TOGIE]

That’s wild. I saw on many CPW meetings where they chose to not take a stance on this.

cpw as an entity is statutorily prohibited from having a stance. which is why this really seems to create a fuzzy legal conundrum.

that op ed is gag worthy in it's falsities and is written by sitting cpw commissioners who state they are sitting cpw commissioners.

for ****s sake i just can't handle this crap anymore.

 

[perma]

cpw as an entity is statutorily prohibited from having a stance. which is why this really seems to create a fuzzy legal conundrum.

that op ed is gag worthy in it's falsities and is written by sitting cpw commissioners who state they are sitting cpw commissioners.

for ****s sake i just can't handle this crap anymore.

While crooked, we should have seen some misbehavior coming in the last few months. Still winnable.

Drafting an email now.

 

[winmag]

CPW biologists can’t have an opinion on the ballot measure but the commissioners can? That’s outrageous!

 

[perma]

This is how they’re getting away with it unless the AG sees it a different way:

Jack Murphy and Jessica Beaulieu are current Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioners representing Outdoor Recreation and State Parks Utilization. James Pribyl served as former member of the Colorado State Parks Board, Greater Outdoor Colorado Trust Fund, and as chair of the Parks and Wildlife Commission.

 

[Oak]

Just a reminder about the rally this Friday. If so inclined, participants are encouraged to wear camo or blaze orange. Please invite family, friends, neighbors, etc.

Note the ending time is 1:00 PM. It was previously advertised as 2:00 PM.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

The Op-Ed’s have been raised to the DNR and AG. What’s glaring is the outright lies from Beaulieu and Murphy. Both testified in front of the Senate Natural Resources Committee that they did not support “ballot box biology” and now months later they are leveraging their position on the CPW Commission to publicly support ballot box biology through Prop 127. Seems hypocritical that they ask CPW agency personnel to not weigh in but they can. They also claimed that lion hunters use drones which is clearly illegal and considered poaching. They are both liars, plain and simple. Their anti-hunting bias is shining through. Please write the commission, your elected reps, and Gov office. It seems that certain CPW Commissioners act with impunity, with no process or mechanism to be held accountable to the public.

 

[Oak]

CPW fact sheet on cat management:

Why do we manage wildlife populations like lions and
bobcats?
Colorado now has 5.8 million human residents and while we
still have many wild areas, our human footprint in wildlife
habitat cannot be overstated. Such a footprint has and
continues to alter ecosystems carrying capacities and various
wildlife species that have evolved together through millennia
thus creating imbalances and requiring management to restore
or mimic balances.

Therefore, CPW believes that managing lions and bobcats with
harvest is a tool to maintain more stable populations compared
to more widely fluctuating populations that would likely occur
without hunting.

CPW Commissioners' Op-ed:

To be clear, CPW offers mountain lion hunting to serve mountain lion hunters alone, for a recreational opportunity.

 

[Sytes]

saw this over on rokslide

Current CPW commissioners promoting proposition 127 with lies.

Current CPW commissioners wrote an opinion piece published in the Durango Herald and I suspect elsewhere. The pro prop 127 piece by the commissioners is a disgrace and should disqualify them from public service. The piece is filled with false, intentionally misleading information, and blatant...

rokslide.com

sounds like senator dylan roberts, who is seemingly hunters strongest ally in this state anymore, has had this brought to his attentions and he is concerned about it.

i suggest people send many e-mails and phone calls to representatives, cpw leadership, and the AG. this feels illegal - i'd be curious if anyone with some legal expertise would agree.

As a federal employee, we're restricted by the Hatch Act. That said, federal funding in part or whole binds State and local governing authorities as well;

...

The following list offers examples of the types of programs that frequently receive financial assistance from the federal government: public health, public welfare, housing, urban renewal and area redevelopment, employment security, labor and industry training, public works, conservation, agricultural, civil defense, transportation, anti-poverty, and law enforcement programs.

Hatch Act provisions also may apply to employees of private, nonprofit organizations that receive federal Head Start or Community Service Block Grant funds.

State, D.C., or local employees subject to the Hatch Act continue to be covered while on annual leave, sick leave, leave without pay, administrative leave, or furlough.

...

Permitted to involve themselves in political activities require the following:

**While engaging in these activities employees must be acting in their personal capacity, not their official capacity. For example, they should not identify their official title when engaging in any of these activities.

State, D.C., or Local Employee Hatch Act Information

osc.gov

This may be a Federal violation. Might serve good reason to remove them from their seat?

 

[Ben Lamb]

This may be a Federal violation. Might serve good reason to remove them from their seat?

As commisioners are appointed volunteers without any real compensation package, the op-ed is likely not illegal nor is it worthy of any federal Hatch act violations since this is not a Federal employment issue at all.

In the 22 years of doing this work, I've seen commissioners take positions publicly that they probably shouldn't. That's not illegal, just poor form. Keep attacking the issue and not the people promoting it.

When these things become personal you lose votes because of how you act towards your adversaries. Heads held high, attack ideas- not people, and always take the ethical high road. It's a great weapon against those who take shortcuts on critical issues.

 

[Sytes]

As commisioners are appointed volunteers without any real compensation package, the op-ed is likely not illegal nor is it worthy of any federal Hatch act violations since this is not a Federal employment issue at all.

In the 22 years of doing this work, I've seen commissioners take positions publicly that they probably shouldn't. That's not illegal, just poor form. Keep attacking the issue and not the people promoting it.

When these things become personal you lose votes because of how you act towards your adversaries. Heads held high, attack ideas- not people, and always take the ethical high road. It's a great weapon against those who take shortcuts on critical issues.

I agree it is poor form and... they are violating their own CPW regulations (Complete attached and quoted portion): Regardless whether one believes an appointed commissioner is bound to the Hatch Act and FCPA.

Using their first paragraph the published public opinion piece:

J. COMMUNICATION with EXTERNAL PARTIES

i. Communications by Commission members, when acting as
Commission members, will be consistent with the statutory
mandate of the Division, and represent the Division's interests.

ii. Commission members will be respectful of the Commission, its
policies, and its decisions in all external communications, even if
they disagree with them.

iii. Commission members will not communicate as a spokesperson on
behalf of the Commission unless authorized to do so. When
making public statements, the Commission member will make it
clear whether they are communicating as a spokesperson on
behalf of the Commission or communicating as an individual.

iv. In situations that call for a spokesperson to communicate on
behalf of the Commission, the Commission Chair will act as
spokesperson or designate an alternate if necessary.

v. Written press releases from the Division will be the responsibility of
the Director and will clearly and accurately express the operations of
the Division and the policies of the Commission. The Director will
ensure copies of all press releases are made available to the
Commission in a timely manner.

When these things become personal you lose votes because of how you act towards your adversaries. Heads held high, attack ideas- not people, and always take the ethical high road. It's a great weapon against those who take shortcuts on critical issues.

Once we are successful (crossing fingers), it would be good to hold them accountable.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Did they represent themselves as carrying an official position?

That's the hurdle. If it's just sitting member's opinion, then it seems like it falls under the 1st amendment right for protected speech.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

It is very unlikely that any of Polis' henchmen like Attorney General Weiser or DNR Director Gibbs would take any action against these Commissioners, whether they broke a law or not. I believe that one of the strengths of the commission is their attempts to stay above the political fray and base their rule making on solid CPW staff recommendations and public input. In this instance 2 Commissioners sought to influence public opinion based on their own biases, trafficking in serious misinformation along the way. May be within their constitutional rights but I believe it jeopardizes the credibility of the commission in the eyes of many sportsmen and women.

 

[Sytes]

Did they represent themselves as carrying an official position?

"We are the current [and former] Parks and Wildlife Commissioners which is the body that sets wildlife policy... and we encourage a "yes" vote on proposition 127".

Yes.

They certainly did not "make it clear... this was not the voice of the Wildlife Commissioners which is the body that sets Wildlife policy..."

This is for Colorado to decide if/when that time comes.

I agree to keep the eye on the force of the current action.

That said, upon success (fingers crossed for the national implications), knocking off those who are critically opposed and publicly using their position to influence votes, would be a reasonable next step.
I still believe there may be FCPA/HATCH issues and yep, Epstein had attorneys as well. Nature of the law. Prosecution/Defense.

As @Oak shared:



Sent to my Brother in Loveland and he's sending it out to all he knows.

 

[Oak]

Did they represent themselves as carrying an official position?

That's the hurdle. If it's just sitting member's opinion, then it seems like it falls under the 1st amendment right for protected speech.

I agree with all you said. The only line in the op-ed that caught my eye was the one I quoted above.

CPW offers mountain lion hunting to serve mountain lion hunters alone, for a recreational opportunity.

Coming from a Commissioner, that sounds like they are presenting the position of CPW regarding the reason for mountain lion seasons.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I agree with all you said. The only line in the op-ed that caught my eye was the one I quoted above.

Coming from a Commissioner, that sounds like they are presenting the position of CPW regarding the reason for mountain lion seasons.

No disagreement from me. Opponents to the initiative were given a gift with that op-ed, if they choose to use it.

 

[COEngineer]

Did they represent themselves as carrying an official position?

That's the hurdle. If it's just sitting member's opinion, then it seems like it falls under the 1st amendment right for protected speech.

It's the first sentence of the article:

 

[COEngineer]

Opponents to the initiative were given a gift with that op-ed, if they choose to use it.

Can you elucidate?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Can you elucidate?

From a campaign perspective, it gives the opportunity for a negative attack on process & impartiality, which helps move swing votes towards your position if played correctly. Since there is a big election this year, dems have to be really careful in some districts and at the statewide level to not alienate people and help maintain their majorities, which are not entirely certain as is.

It's an unforced error that makes the proponent side look shady and shifty. Opponents should play that card and push the dems into a corner, especially in districts that are swingable at the legislative level.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Well it’s in the media now. Apparently there was no disclaimer in the Durango Herald article clearly stating that Murphy and Beaulieu were speaking on personal opinion and not representing CPW or the commission. Howard also highlights they may be in violation of Colorado Open Meetings Law, which Chairman May warned the Commission about recently. Hard to co-write an Op-Ed without conversing over email or phone.

Colorado wildlife commissioners divided on Proposition 127, which would ban mountain lion, lynx and bobcat hunting

A ballot measure that seeks to prohibit the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx has created a divide among current and former members of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife

www.coloradopolitics.com