Thanks for the article, Fin. Care to provide any thoughts? I am always anxious to hear more from people who have a lot more knowledge about the legislative process and inner workings of game management.
Here are my first thoughts:
I understand that Galt (and other landowner participants) should be able to voice their opinions and be heard like any other U.S. citizen, but it sure seems like they get special treatment. And maybe that's just the way of the world.
It does seem like Bullock might be getting input from someone with half a brain:
“Seriously, I think biology ought to determine what we open up, how we manage the resource, not politics. We shouldn’t be setting the parameters for harvest numbers by fiat. We need to let the experts do what they can do.”
To me, this statement indicates that there is some realization that the elk objectives have been determined primarily through politics and money, rather than science.
Obviously there is a higher agenda here than just taking care of the overabundance of elk on (in this case) the Galt land, but how can anyone take him seriously when he talks about being "weary of decades fighting the overpopulation of elk on his ground", then later remarks that he only had 17% of his land in block management.
I am sure that I am not seeing the entire picture, and I am willing to admit that I might think differently if I were a major land owner, but obviously the "overpopulation" of elk is not his number one concern.
Hopefully Bullock, and others who have more direct influence on the direction of this stuff, will weight the input they get from small landowners and non-landowner hunters fairly.
