ID F&G reform initiative starts anew

[Ithaca 37]

"Ex-director says goal is to reduce political meddling......Supporters of the petition want to reduce political influence on F&G and the commission. Opponents say a shake-up is unnecessary."

Passing this initiative will be the best thing we can do for F&G. The F&G Commission is now under the thumb of the Governor.

Let's hear from the anti's on this issue!

http://www.idahostatesman.com/Extras/IdahoOutdoors/story.asp?ID=35750

 

[Oak]

I've posted 4 or 5 topics about how political influence on our wildlife commission and DOW is affecting hunters. It just seems that most hunters don't pay attention to what's going on, or don't care.

A talk I'm going to on Monday: "The Systematic Extirpation of Checks and Balances in the Governance of Colorado's Wildlife Resources"----an example of the role of professional societies and political structure in wildlife management.

This will be given by a DOW elk researcher and should be pretty interesting.

Oak

 

[Bullhound]

I was racing like hell last year collecting signatures but it didn't get enough in the short time we had. This is something that I can't understand why any sportsman or hunter in the state would disagree with.

I did find out one thing in this though. If you need 50,000 signatures, you need to collect 120,000 to 150,000. It is amazing how many are disallowed.

 

[BuzzH]

Good luck to all you sportsmen/women in Idaho getting this passed.

Wildlife should be managed by the biologists, not by special interest groups or politics.

 

[Lostagain]

By God, Buzz, I agree with that completely.

 

[Muledeer4me]

I also strongly agree with Buzz on this .
Although I dont see the political end of it ever going away.
It might help to shift it to a more even balance ,or it might only shift it over to the other political side.
In talking with some of the other backer's and signer's about this ,they admitted it wasnt a sure fix and that with the mix of people we have moving in from other State's and the shift in view's we could end up with some people that are not supportive of hunting.
What they said is , the wrong mix could happen if the (sportsmen) dont get involved enough to prevent that type of person from getting in, but it would there own fault and they would be getting what they deserve.
Something else I don't understand.
One of the ex-commisioner's ( he didnt get re-apponted by our governor)was more then pleased to serve on the commision under our governor and the system we now have.
It wasn't untill after a fall out ? with-in the group that some decided we needed to take control away from the governor? and they didnt like the way they fired two other director's (one that mooned the shore while on a boat trip LOL ,the other was a strong supporter of re-introducing the grizzle bear) I dont remember all of it.
So is this really motivated by wanting to take politic's out ,Or just wanting to have the power for themself's and to there political side?
From the strong supporter's that I know personally ,they are not (non-political type people ) and have never been as long as I have know them,almost 17 year's.
From that aspect it make's me wonder about THERE true motavation.
It really is bull chit that it has to be motavated by politics,but isn't most everything motativted by politics , money , power & greed? At least at the top?

 

[MarlandS]

You nailed it MD, nice post..

 

[Ithaca 37]

This initiative isn't just a reaction to things that have happened in the last three or four years. Many sportsman's groups and individuals have been talking about putting this type of initiative on the ballot for at least the last fifteen years. Anyone who has been involved with F&G issues and politics would probably know that. I've mentioned it in the past when we discussed the last initiative.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-25-2003 18:58: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

I agree that this is not a reaction. This is a long time coming. The first act of Governor Batt was to ask for the resignations of all the commisisoners. They were appointed under Andrus, and with victory come the spoils. I always thought that shortsighted act by Batt was the shot across the bow, that woke up many people.

For an article on the cahos of 2 years ago:
High Country News

 

[Muledeer4me]

"The first act of Governor Batt was to ask for the resignations of all the commisisoners. They were appointed under Andrus"

Elkgunner,isn't that part of the problem?
Andrus was a Democrat,Batt was a Republican.
Each wanted there own party line's followed?
If this initiative will really change that I see it as a good thing ,however I don't believe it will ever be (Non-political)we will get people in there that have that leanning toward's there own party.
I think it suck's to run wildlife issue like that ,but I sure dont want the Democrat-PC -greenie type folk's getting voted into place.LOL

It could happen, These people can say it all night long that it has nothing to do with politc's,but I know some of the player's on this and THEY are political thinker's and have been involved in issue's of a politcal nature as long as I have know them.

You can't get away from that!!!!!!
While some of us really would love to see it ,I think it's a smoke screen for other's trying to get control.
Out of the cattlemen's hand's?
Out of the more Republican control?
Into a different mind set?
More wolve's,less cattlemen,less access?
Just some thought's on this ,and I have had some long talk's with the backer's of this and they have admitted it could happen,that we as sportsmen will have to be real involved.
On the other hand,if we get another Democrat Governer voted in ,the way it is now he could fire all the commissioners we now have and replace them with his liking .
So either way it look's politacal to me.
But it's no secret that I would just as soon keep it under the Republican control

we now have in this State LOL
Although I did happen to like Andrus alot ,he is one of the good democrat's

 

[1_pointer]

I read this the other day and thought it was applicable to this discussion:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wildlife management used to mean setting seasons and limits by scientific population studies, planting some shrubs, digging some ponds, checking licenses and bag limits and looking for poachers. Boy has that changed! Today, often, more time is spent managing people than working with animals<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>James A. Swan 1994. In Defense of Hunting

 

[Ithaca 37]

"The first act of Governor Batt was to ask for the resignations of all the commisisoners. They were appointed under Andrus"

Elkgunner,isn't that part of the problem?"

Of course they were appointed during the Andrus administration. Commissioner terms were six years at that time and Andrus was Gov. for eight. If Batt had been Gov. for eight he would have had a chance to appoint all the Commissioners too. The point is---he tried to fire them all in the first weeks of his administration and no other Gov. had ever tried anything like that. Batt even admitted, after the public outcry, that he had been "ill advised" to do that.

"While some of us really would love to see it ,I think it's a smoke screen for other's trying to get control.
Out of the cattlemen's hand's?
Out of the more Republican control?"

What's wrong with that? Why should cattlemen have any control over F&G? Please explain that.

One of the biggest problems is lack of a two party system. The Idaho Republicans have sure made some real bad decisions in the last few years. That's why they're forced to raise taxes less than two years after cutting them. Two strong parties forces better decision making.

Anyone who doesn't understand that is showing they don't understand the political process and the repercussions of passing poorly debated legislation.

One big problem is that many people who have never been involved in the real work of passing legislation or even doing a little lobbying usually have no idea of the realities of it and, regardless, expound on their looney tune theories as if they actually make sense. That's why education is so important.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-26-2003 17:41: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

MD4,

I recognized why Batt tried to get resignations, and my observation was that it woke up many hunters/fisherpeople in Idaho.

I am not a historian of the commission, but my guess is that they were not "Political Pawns", to the extent, prior to then.

Can you educate me as to how to tell the difference between a Republican Elk and a Democratic Elk? I have hunted them for many years, and I had never thought to look for party affiliation. I had just always looked for a spot right next to the front leg...

It is interesting that anyone can think the commission should be political. Someone help me, if my facts are wrong, but, in 1938 the constitution was changed, by inititive, to create the commission, independent of the Legislature. All the money comes from the hunters and fishers, none from the General Fund. It looks like the mission of the commission should be to manage the resources to the benefit of the constituents WHO pay.

If the action does not help put more sheep on the mountain, or fish in the crick, (the Idaho spelling...

) then the commission is off base. I can tell you that Steelhead fishing in Hells Canyon, and Salmon fishing in Riggins is a lot more fun, if there are fish in the river. Without the fish, I think it is just called drinking beer.

There should be no "cattleman's interest" in the commission, as the cattleman pays nothing to the commission, as a cow owner. And I think the F&G goes a long way toward resolving depredation issues.

I still see no place for partisan politics in the commission. Am I just dumb???

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-26-2003 20:31: Message edited by: Elkgunner ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Elkgunner, You got it right, except for one small detail. The F&G Commission and present dept. were established by an initiative, which does not change the constitution and is not as strong as a constitutional amendment would be. An initiative is nothing more than another law---although it's passed by the people and not the Legislature. That's why legislators hate initiatives so much. They want a monopoly on passing legislation.

Prior to Batt the Commission was treated with much more respect. The Batt administration politicized it. After his failed attempt to fire the whole Commission they shortened the terms and added two commissioners so they'd be able to put a majority of their own pawns on the Commission as quickly as possible. Prior to Batt, longer Commission terms and the tradition of giving almost all Commissioners two terms made it just about impossible for one Gov. to stack the Commission with his own appointees.

Since MD4M is such an expert on all this I'm sure she can easily answer your other questions and fill in the Commission history much better than I.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-26-2003 21:04: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Can you educate me as to how to tell the difference between a Republican Elk and a Democratic Elk? I have hunted them for many years, and I had never thought to look for party affiliation. I had just always looked for a spot right next to the front leg... "

Oh elkgunner ,if you got a shot right next to the front leg,that would be the Republican Elk.
If you only had the ass shot,that would be the Democraric elk ,you know because that's how ya feel after the demacrat's get done with ya like you bent over and took it in the short's .


Your taking me wrong on this issue.
Im not saying I think It's set up correct,im saying I dont think it will ever be non-political.
I wish it could be,but I dont see it happening.
I dont think the cattlemen should be running the show,nor do I think the fence sitters should be or the non-hunting public.
Im saying that we are still running the risk of getting into place people of the non-hunting type.
It's not ever going to be NON-POLITICAL, nothing is.
I knew Idaho was a Republican State when I moved here LOL if I didnt like that I would of stayed in Calif. or moved to Vermont

I understand I will never be up to Ithaca's statis ,but arent we trying for that TWO PARTY STATE LOL or is it more power play to get the control shifted over to Ithaca's party line's?

 

[Ithaca 37]

No, I truly believe the best form of gummint is a strong two party system. At least that's the best we can hope for now. Maybe a strong three party system would be even better. The more debate, the better the legislation. The worst legislation or decisions come when one party can ram anything thru without debate.

Actually, when I was brought up in VT and for many years after I left to move West, Vermont was the most conservative state in the country. And it had been ever since they reluctantly joined the Union as the 14th state. Even back then the Vermonters thought the other states were too liberal.

They reserved the right, at that time, to secede from the Union at any time they thought the rest of the Union was getting too far out. They debate seceding just about every year in the Legislature, and they often act independently of the rest of the country---as they did when they declared war on Germany in February 1941 ( eleven months before the rest of the Union).

As a Vermonter, I am a true conservative----not one of these Johnny come lately right wing radical looney tunes--but a true conservative who believes in conserving our resources and acting with the utmost responsibiliy and wisdom, both fiscally and socially.

Please don't confuse these people in Idaho who call themselves "Conservatives" with REAL Conservatives. This Idaho brand is a bunch of simple minded lunatics who would be laughed out of most other states--especially by the REAL Conservatives !

It's embarrassing to live in a state where idiocy is confused with conservatism.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-28-2003 07:35: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Nut]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ithaca 37:
No, I truly believe the best form of gummint is a strong two party system. At least that's the best we can hope for now. Maybe a strong three party system would be even better. The more debate, the better the legislation. The worst legislation or decisions come when one party can ram anything thru without debate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with that statement since I dont trust ANY politician to do what is actually best for the state or country.


A Fish and Game department should be run by professional biologists that dont have a political affliation.

 

[JoseCuervo]

MD and Ithica,

I hope I haven't waded into the middle of some sort of tryst you two got going.... Excuse me if I need to just slip right back out... pretend like I was never here....

It actually looks like you two have quite a bit in common, you are both Pro-Choice. Each of you decided to move here, by choice. I didn't have that luxury, I was born here.

MD,
Thanks for the help on the party affiliation of Elk. Given your advice, I can honestly say I saw a Democrat Elk this fall. All I could see was a single huge antler and an ass. I ended up not getting a shot at him. My buddy across the canyon said he was the Bull of a lifetime, and he rarely gets excited about an elk. A couple of days later, I did find a Republican elk, watched the guy for 30 minutes, finally was able to count to 6 on both sides, and dumped his butt, with two shots right behind the leg.

The Democrat was much more impressive than the Republican. I still dream about the Democrat, the Republican, however, does put food on my plate....

Ithica and MD,
I would encourage both of you to keep posting, and recognize the rhetoric does occasionally cloud your messages.

It is always ironic, but One learns more from those who disagree with One's self, than those who are like minded. I don't need to listen to those who share my opinions, as I can not learn from them. Those with differing opinions, can teach me.

I have had friends, who after 5+ years, ask me, "Which side are you on???". And I take that as a compliment. Last fall we had a
Welfare Rancher in Elk Camp with us for 6 days. A hell of a great guy, a lot of fun to drink with, and listen to stories around the campfire. Summer before last, I took a bunch of Environmental Lawyers down the Main Salmon for a week. We had a hell of a great time. A lot of fun to be with, great times around the campfire, and in the hot springs.

I learn from both sides. I will tell you though, given what I know about both sides, I bet the Green side wins, as they have a true passion for what they are doing, and are motivated by a sense of "doing good". The rancher side is either motivated by profit or by a sense of history. If the profit goes away, I truly believe the history will not be enough to overcome the side that believes they are "doing good".

Me? I'll drink both sides beer, and for what it is worth, the Green side does buy better beer. More micro-brews, less Budweiser....

 

[Moosie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ithica and MD,
I would encourage both of you to keep posting, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HEHEHE.. JUSt try to stop one of them... they're both like the Energizer BUNNY

 

[ELKCHSR]

Elk Gunner....
Good post, even the last lines prove some thing about each side and you even stated it, one side is forced to work hard and money is a big concern to that end, where the other side try's to enjoy the good things in life with out ever either knowing the full picture of what they strive for (They run strictly off emotion) or where money actually comes from (They have no idea of where a base economy gets it's money to keep things going) and it's not from web accounts, paper pushers, or any thing else that doesn't actually create dollars, it is from raw products. While one side likes to play and live in the wealth around them, some still believe in creating dollars from the riches of the earth, with out these riches, the other side would have no money to be able to play and live the good life. Look at any poor third world country and you will see this truth quite plainly!!!