Why do state game commissions exist? Educate a Canadian.

[glennw89]

In recent years there has been a lot of "noise" about game commissions in states like Oregon and Colorado. I'm curious as to why these commissions even exist? Shouldn't policy directives come from the biologists of said state (or even the politicians - that is a reality unfortunately)? I just don't see what is gained by having random people "nominated" to positions of decision making significance. It seems like a process that is guaranteed to bring disagreement and dysfunction.

Our provincial fish and wildlife management system is far, far from perfect - but I'm glad we don't have to contend with ballot box biology and state commissions.

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

Political appointments to pay back political favors.

 

[EKYHunter]

Political appointments to pay back political favors.

Exactly. State Government = Cronyism, especially in those types of positions appointed by the goobernor.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Biologists have a mandate to use science to achieve the commission’s policy goals.

Biology and social expectations are not one and the same.

 

[Gellar]

State commissions oversea much more than bag limits and season dates.

 

[westbranch]

In theory the commissions are able to receive input from biologists and the public on seasons, limits, etc for rule making.

I have met a few Idaho commissioners and know one on a more personal level. It seems to me they do an ok job of balancing the science, social and politics. Not a perfect system, but Idaho has different issues from WA, OR and CO.

 

[Gellar]

I’m sure every state is different but our commission also has the final say in contracts for grants, acquisitions, infrastructure and habitat improvement projects. I guess you could say they are the rubber stamp.

For example, our county acquired some land using money from the sales of fishing licenses and used funds from boat registrations for many projects at boat accesses. The county pays for the project out of pocket and then they get reimbursed when the state commission approves it.

in this instance the county works with a local Dnr agent, usually a fish bio or a wildlife bio, depending on where or what the project is to identify projects and design projects. The county completes the work using their approved letting process or acquisition process, pays the contractor and applies to the state commission for reimbursement.

If you are interested in lighter reading for today just google your state and wild game commission code and it will give you a document of their bylaws from selection of members to public input process to grant approval or whatever else you are interested in. Iowas for reference is 549 pages. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/agency/07-01-2020.571.pdf

 

[bayoublaster7527]

In Colorado the commission exists to provide the Governor unilateral power over all hunting, fishing, and wildlife management. With very few checks and balances. According to a recent article just this week the governor called a commissioner during the meeting to demand they push through a ban on prairie dog hunting. In the coming weeks they are ramming through a lead ammo ban and a ban on electronic calls for predator hunting, with no stakeholder engagement and against the recommendation of the agency biologists. Currently they exist to provide a place for anti-hunting activists to chip away at hunting, trapping, and even fishing despite significant opposition. It’s a total disaster in Colorado and despite the consistent threat of ballot initiatives, the commission might be the actual route anti-hunting activists in Colorado squeeze out hunters and anglers.

The Commission wields complete and absolute power over the Colorado Parks and Wildlife agency. The Director and biologists don’t matter much as they are routinely ignored and frequently disparaged by the commission.

 

[Gellar]

According to a recent article just this week the governor called a commissioner during the meeting to demand they push through a ban on prairie dog hunting.

That would be a violation of open meetings law if it wasn’t on the agenda within the required timeframe. I bet how commissioners are appointed are in your state code to. Sounds like a group like the Ike’s need to sue them for open meetings.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

That would be a violation of open meetings law if it wasn’t on the agenda within the required timeframe. I bet how commissioners are appointed are in your state code to. Sounds like a group like the Ike’s need to sue them for open meetings.

Great point and there is already one lawsuit on the books over violating the requirement for public notice. They have been sued for open meetings and violation of CPW communications policy before. Settled outside of court and commissioners gave a defaint, smug half-apology. Expect more litigation from these more recent events, some just happened last week.