Pro-Wolf-Anti Hunting CPW Commissioner Appointed.

[AvidIndoorsman]

Apologies for the wildly hyperbolic title... but I got your attention didn't I

So as @Zach posted in another thread James Jay Tutchton was just appointed to the CPW Commission.

Appointment Process
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is a citizen board, appointed by the Governor, which sets regulations and policies for Colorado’s state parks and wildlife programs.
The 11 voting members of the commission include three members who are sportspersons, one of whom must be an outfitter; three agricultural producers; three recreationalists, including one from a non-profit, non-consumptive wildlife organization; two at-large members. Members are expected to represent all parks and wildlife-related issues, regardless of their affiliation. A minimum of four commissioners must be from west of the Continental Divide.

I'm concerned about the appoint of Tutchton as he was the general counsel for Wild Earth Guardians for over a decade and was the author on a ton of the wolf litigation from the anti-hunting crowd.

Tutchton was the lead attorney for lawsuits against the USFWS by WildEarth/Humane Society/ etc in Montana, Wyoming, and New Mexico.

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Salazar
Defenders of Wildlife v. Tuggle

Environmentalists: Wolf-delisting plan wrong’

CHEYENNE, Wyo. Western environmental groups say theyre alarmed that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering a plan to end federal...

durangoherald.com

Who's afraid of the big, bad wolf? - High Country News

By Heather Hansen, Red Lodge Clearing House As darkness blanketed the land, two cunning predators made their move. Their thirst for blood was intense and, when the opportunity presented itself, they sunk their canines into the soft underbelly of their prey. This eager hunting pair–Sen. Jon...

www.hcn.org

I asked my friends if they knew him... from a past student;
"I stopped hunting because there is no scenario in which you can hunt without causing pain." -Tutchton

I definitely think Tutchton will be looking out for the health of COs wildlife, but I'm concerned on his stance with wolves and what role he sees Colorado's sportsman and women have in managing our ungulate herds.

 

[TOGIE]

i agree. don't like it one bit.

my years of paying attention to wildlife issues are fewer than most and am therefore not super privy to who all the commissioners have been over the years and what their affiliations have always been. i therefore assume that generally the one non consumptive member has pretty much always been someone that i would generally find disagreeable.

and hopefully the balance of diversity in affiliations from sportspersons to at large members etc will prevail

i don't hate polis as much as i thought it would before he got elected, but that doesn't absolve him of the many disagreeable things he did in my opinion during his tenure as a congressman. nor does it stop me from having this assumption in my mind that such an appointment is nothing other than repayment for political favors, as Randy might say

 

[Bigjay73]

I dream of a day that wildlife is managed by biologists and science

 

[Big Fin]

Will be interesting to follow how this evolves.

 

[Sytes]

Love the title! A shiny hook w/o bait and I bit - hook, line, and sinker. Wolf in a title and I'll be your huckleberry! Haha!

After listening to a few of the griz council meetings for MT, and to know this is some citizen's Governor ordered group, it sickens me to listen to the bitter divisiveness by anti hunter types and then those who do have a pro State management/hunt conservation position willing to maintain some decorum and keep it open to the melting pot of ideas...
However, it represents various views and that brings its value.

However to have the leader of your CPW Commission as a former attorney for "Wild Earth Guardians"...

Best to you.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Will be interesting to follow how this evolves.

Yes, it will be interesting.

Folks need to remember that commissioners can't act with autonomy though. Look at #1 in this link.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

The commission must act within the confines of law when they develop policy. Not saying this a good thing, just throwing out some perspective.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Yes, it will be interesting.

Folks need to remember that commissioners can't act with autonomy though. Look at #1 in this link.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

The commission must act within the confines of law when they develop policy. Not saying this a good thing, just throwing out some perspective.

Absolutely and I don't think Tutchton's background means he won't work towards those goals.

 

[TOGIE]

Yes, it will be interesting.

Folks need to remember that commissioners can't act with autonomy though. Look at #1 in this link.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

The commission must act within the confines of law when they develop policy. Not saying this a good thing, just throwing out some perspective.

that's funny, i've never noticed that.

really says something about cpw. increasing hunter numbers is goal numero uno, increasing big game populations is THREE.

never has the cart before the horse been an ideal modus operandi, at least i always thought

but of course, who am i to assume those are listed in order of priority...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Lots of folks that have never had to count votes for a living getting worked up about a token appointment.

 

[azelkhntr]

Just spitballing but should'nt the people who pay for the operation of the CPW actually expect a professional level of impartiality in such matters? Seems to me a class action suit by a group of hunters could force that man out.

 

[Mudranger1]

Lots of folks that have never had to count votes for a living getting worked up about a token appointment.

 

[TheTone]

The whole make up of the commission seems like a total mess to me. Looks like every special interest gets a seat

 

[seeth07]

really says something about cpw. increasing hunter numbers is goal numero uno, increasing big game populations is THREE.

Actually, I love that as priority number one. Should be hands down. The more sportmen and sportswomen we have the better. More voices, more opinions when it comes to legal items. More money in the industry. More stewardship of the land for wildlife resulting in more places for more wildlife. Its ground zero for conservation people, recruitment! If you aren't able to grasp this concept, you're just thinking of this from the wrong angle because you're thinking of your own personal gains.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

If you aren't able to grasp this concept, you're just thinking of this from the wrong angle because you're thinking of your own personal gains.

I think this take is a little harsh and myopic. More users equals more impact on resources. One could easily argue increased access and fish/animals is just as if not more important than users.

 

[TOGIE]

Actually, I love that as priority number one. Should be hands down. The more sportmen and sportswomen we have the better. More voices, more opinions when it comes to legal items. More money in the industry. More stewardship of the land for wildlife resulting in more places for more wildlife. Its ground zero for conservation people, recruitment! If you aren't able to grasp this concept, you're just thinking of this from the wrong angle because you're thinking of your own personal gains.

Personal gains? I would think sacrificing opportunity for the sake of more animals as less about me... but that’s semantics.

when cpw says grow hunter numbers I read that as “sell licenses” and “generate revenue” which are not bad things. But I don’t equate it with “recruitment”

If anything, as cpw has sold more and more licenses over the years, has that equated with more animals? Like in the past 20 years? I’d hardly think so, I’d wager statewide big game animals have generally decreased in numbers.

More dollars doesn’t equate to more animals to me, responsible use of dollars does. And avid, responsible, sport persons committed to the cause creates more animals, so yes recruitment is as important as ever.

I dunno, what’s more important for the hot dog stand? Selling hot dogs? Or having hot dogs to sell? Kind of an impossible question cause the answer is both, equally.

 

[cedahm]

The whole make up of the commission seems like a total mess to me. Looks like every special interest gets a seat

Largely by rule/design:

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

Notably: “ The 11 voting members of the commission include three members who are sportspersons, one of whom must be an outfitter; three agricultural producers; three recreationalists, including one from a non-profit, non-consumptive wildlife organization; two at-large members. Members are expected to represent all parks and wildlife-related issues, regardless of their affiliation. A minimum of four commissioners must be from west of the Continental Divide.”

The Geo-makeup right now is pretty evenly split between western slope (4), front range (3) and East/southeast (4)

 

[seeth07]

I dunno, what’s more important for the hot dog stand? Selling hot dogs? Or having hot dogs to sell? Kind of an impossible question cause the answer is both, equally.

Yes I get what your saying. I think a lot of you on here are living out west where the onset of the hunter numbers issue hasn't quite been seen and actually based on western big game license sales, I actually now see after researching that they look to be going up. So on a local state level, that's all good and everyone should be seeing that as a good thing as we need these extra conservation voices in all aspects of our society.

However, this is not the case in the midwest, South and east. Since a lot of conservation items are also addressed at the federal level, this is bad for us all as congressmen are being less and less influenced by the conservationists in their home states.

Imagine what happens if say a state like wisconsin, rich in history and tradition in deer hunting gets to a point where all the state reps no longer have that embeded in their mind from their own personal history and relationships. Will they care about the deer anymore? No they won't. Or at least not as passionate about it. Westerns states also only have a small portion of the votes in the house due to low populations. Most states with good hunting....low populations. Its a losing battle for us and with a scary decrease in hunter numbers in the last 20 years, we are 20 years away from all these generation x, y and z's from getting in office and potentially seeing some drastic changes to wildlife if we don't push recruitment as priority number 1

 

[MTLabrador]

Yes I get what your saying. I think a lot of you on here are living out west where the onset of the hunter numbers issue hasn't quite been seen and actually based on western big game license sales, I actually now see after researching that they look to be going up. So on a local state level, that's all good and everyone should be seeing that as a good thing as we need these extra conservation voices in all aspects of our society.

However, this is not the case in the midwest, South and east. Since a lot of conservation items are also addressed at the federal level, this is bad for us all as congressmen are being less and less influenced by the conservationists in their home states.

Imagine what happens if say a state like wisconsin, rich in history and tradition in deer hunting gets to a point where all the state reps no longer have that embeded in their mind from their own personal history and relationships. Will they care about the deer anymore? No they won't. Or at least not as passionate about it. Westerns states also only have a small portion of the votes in the house due to low populations. Most states with good hunting....low populations. Its a losing battle for us and with a scary decrease in hunter numbers in the last 20 years, we are 20 years away from all these generation x, y and z's from getting in office and potentially seeing some drastic changes to wildlife if we don't push recruitment as priority number 1

Asking Colorado residents to sacrifice the health of their wildlife resource for the sake of hunter recruitment is problematic. What about increasing hunter recruitment by taking some kids out for cottontails or getting them excited to hunt their home state for deer?

I don’t think increasing nonresident hunting opportunity in the west is the answer to declining hunter numbers back east, especially where it causes increased strain on the resource. I will always side with taking care of the resource first.

 

[TOGIE]

Yes I get what your saying. I think a lot of you on here are living out west where the onset of the hunter numbers issue hasn't quite been seen and actually based on western big game license sales, I actually now see after researching that they look to be going up. So on a local state level, that's all good and everyone should be seeing that as a good thing as we need these extra conservation voices in all aspects of our society.

However, this is not the case in the midwest, South and east. Since a lot of conservation items are also addressed at the federal level, this is bad for us all as congressmen are being less and less influenced by the conservationists in their home states.

Imagine what happens if say a state like wisconsin, rich in history and tradition in deer hunting gets to a point where all the state reps no longer have that embeded in their mind from their own personal history and relationships. Will they care about the deer anymore? No they won't. Or at least not as passionate about it. Westerns states also only have a small portion of the votes in the house due to low populations. Most states with good hunting....low populations. Its a losing battle for us and with a scary decrease in hunter numbers in the last 20 years, we are 20 years away from all these generation x, y and z's from getting in office and potentially seeing some drastic changes to wildlife if we don't push recruitment as priority number 1

I agree with ya for sure.

But yeah, I think we were just looking at things through different contextual lenses

AND I feel like I have a personal duty to constantly bust my own states balls, not sure why

The nation needs more hunters, and we need people passionate about hunting, but more so passionate about the animals they’re hunting.

Hunter recruitment can be painful words for those of us living in western states, but people do need to become more aware that more applications than ever in western states doesn’t mean more hunters in the nation.

 

[Oak]

Largely by rule/design:

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

Notably: “ The 11 voting members of the commission include three members who are sportspersons, one of whom must be an outfitter; three agricultural producers; three recreationalists, including one from a non-profit, non-consumptive wildlife organization; two at-large members. Members are expected to represent all parks and wildlife-related issues, regardless of their affiliation. A minimum of four commissioners must be from west of the Continental Divide.”

I preached and preached and preached about this back when it happened. I could probably dig up the old threads. There was a "sportsman" wh@o created as "sportsman's org" and was consulting. @Khunter might remember the name of the organization, as I think he owned the name for a while.