Ithaca 37
New member
This is an old article, but is good to keep in mind. It's bad enough we have these right wing politicians and their anti- wildlife agendas without having some of the nuts on my "Ignore" list claiming to be hunters, but voting for these anti-wildlife jerks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the early 1990s, Western politicians and those in control at the time were mostly Republicans. They coordinated a political hit on Western Game and Fish agencies, which were felt to be too powerful.
The commodity-oriented politicians in control of the Western states got tired of Game and Fish agencies pointing out the problems developments and agricultural practices were causing wildlife.
Agencies had the audacity to point out that there was always a negative cost to wildlife from developments that brought money into state coffers. More than that, they kept reminding the hunting and angling public that there was no free lunch; there might be a profit earned, but this might come with a cost of hunting and angling of reduced quality or quantity.
Nothing irks a right-wing politician more than an opposing viewpoint, especially if the public listens and demands changes. Such viewpoints had to be squelched!
One way to shut agency employees up is to make the director a political appointee. One false move and the director is toast. This discourages knowledgeable professionals from applying for the job, allowing someone to appoint a political hack who doesn't give a hoot about wildlife into the job.
Or a professional deludes his or herself into thinking he or she can survive as director, only to begin censoring the actions and words of department employees for fear something an employee does or says will cause removal of the director.
Ironically, it was Gov. Mike Sullivan's proposal to create a Department of Natural Resources that allowed whose who wanted to control the Game and Fish Department to suggest the "compromise" of making the director a political appointee.
This soon made the well-being of the director more important than what was good for wildlife. Similar actions were taken by legislatures in most of the Western states at about the same time; coincidentally, no doubt.
Equally important in silencing Game and Fish departments and reducing their effectiveness was appointing the "right commissioners," those who would disrupt the workings of the agency and vote against anything that might affect industry or agriculture.
Since the early 1990s there have been some fine commissioners who were extremely interested in wildlife and the folks who hunt and fish. There have been others who from day one were mostly interested in complaining, nitpicking, threatening and harassing employees of the department, and voting against things that were important to wildlife but disliked by agriculture and industry.
Some of these commissioners didn't really hunt or fish, had little interest in wildlife and were mainly representing the special interests that promoted them as commissioners. Some believed they were appointed for life and are still running around spreading hate and dissension.
During deliberations of the commission, the good folks have been out-voted by those whose goals didn't include what was best for wildlife. I got an education about how all of this worked one day coming out of a bathroom at a commission meeting when I overheard several ranchers and heads of the agricultural organizations discussing "... how to maintain control of the Game and Fish Department ..." without Les Henderson and Tracy Hunt on the Game and Fish Commission. The actions of a couple of subsequent appointees answered that question.
Just a few of the actions of Game and Fish Commissions since the director became a political appointee illustrate my point:
* Playing "Let's Make a Deal" with damage claims, paying people for damage that wasn't proven.
* Constantly suggesting changes in formulas for calculating damage payments.
* Constantly censoring Wyoming Wildlife and Wyoming Wildlife News. Nothing remotely critical of agriculture, oil and gas, mining or timbering could be printed, and pictures of animals [that] ranchers or farmers [or] certain commissioners didn't like could not appear in either publication.
* Threatening department employees with disciplinary action if anyone spoke or thought the word "wolf," then lying about it when challenged by teachers who wanted information on wolves.
* Demanding an investigation when two sets of information on wolves prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be used by teachers were discovered in regional offices.
* Beating the hell out of the director of the Game and Fish Department in executive session at every meeting of the commission, prompting him to quit even though he wasn't yet eligible to retire.
* Executive sessions longer than regular meetings of the commission, with topics that should have been discussed in open session.
* Demanding work on sensitive species to help agriculture and industry, then scrapping months or years of work because of political agendas and personal biases.
* Putting what was good for wildlife last.
* Overtly opposing alternative funding for the Game and Fish Department after encouraging the department to seek such funding.
* Commissioners who didn't get their way actively opposing decisions of the commission.
* Attacks on public land, public ownership of wildlife and instream flow even though these are in the nation's or state's constitutions or state law.
* Constant interference with the everyday workings of the Game and Fish Department.
* Insisting that the employees of the Game and Fish Department aren't wildlife advocates. If they aren't, who is?
* Finally, although I could go on, the ultimate indication of what these folks have been up to -- forwarding the name of someone from the Department of Agriculture as a candidate for Director of the Game and Fish Department.
This would have completed capture of the Game and Fish Department by agriculture, and in combination with the bill introduced in the last session of the Legislature "allowing" the agency director to hire two politically appointed assistants, could have placed three ag-oriented political hacks at the top of the Game and Fish Department.
This would certainly provide a good atmosphere for licenses for landowners, forage compensation and game farms.
Gov. Dave Freudenthal has said it is the job of the Game and Fish Department and the Game and Fish Commission to do what's best for wildlife, whether that means there is disagreement with commodity producers or not. Commissioners who believe otherwise should spend some time reading the statutes that created the commission and the department.
The governor has just appointed two new commissioners. I hope these are people who care about wildlife and the folks who hunt and fish, and not just out to make certain the Game and Fish Department is commodity-friendly.
Early signs are promising, but hunters and anglers need to pay attention and make certain the Game and Fish Commission does what is best for wildlife and those who pay the bills -- the license buyers.
The politicians put into office by hunters and anglers have made certain the Game and Fish Department is now allowed to watch out for the welfare of hunters and anglers. The last governor's "one voice" policy was no different than the censorship practiced by Hitler, Stalin or Saddam Hussein, with no contrary opinions allowed and punishment for those voiced.
Sticking up for wildlife requires contrary opinions, but these days, sticking up for wildlife is a dangerous and depressing business. I hope your hunting and fishing has improved while you were letting these folks do what they wanted with your fish and wildlife. Mine hasn't.
Harry Harju retired in December from his post as assistant Wildlife Division chief with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the early 1990s, Western politicians and those in control at the time were mostly Republicans. They coordinated a political hit on Western Game and Fish agencies, which were felt to be too powerful.
The commodity-oriented politicians in control of the Western states got tired of Game and Fish agencies pointing out the problems developments and agricultural practices were causing wildlife.
Agencies had the audacity to point out that there was always a negative cost to wildlife from developments that brought money into state coffers. More than that, they kept reminding the hunting and angling public that there was no free lunch; there might be a profit earned, but this might come with a cost of hunting and angling of reduced quality or quantity.
Nothing irks a right-wing politician more than an opposing viewpoint, especially if the public listens and demands changes. Such viewpoints had to be squelched!
One way to shut agency employees up is to make the director a political appointee. One false move and the director is toast. This discourages knowledgeable professionals from applying for the job, allowing someone to appoint a political hack who doesn't give a hoot about wildlife into the job.
Or a professional deludes his or herself into thinking he or she can survive as director, only to begin censoring the actions and words of department employees for fear something an employee does or says will cause removal of the director.
Ironically, it was Gov. Mike Sullivan's proposal to create a Department of Natural Resources that allowed whose who wanted to control the Game and Fish Department to suggest the "compromise" of making the director a political appointee.
This soon made the well-being of the director more important than what was good for wildlife. Similar actions were taken by legislatures in most of the Western states at about the same time; coincidentally, no doubt.
Equally important in silencing Game and Fish departments and reducing their effectiveness was appointing the "right commissioners," those who would disrupt the workings of the agency and vote against anything that might affect industry or agriculture.
Since the early 1990s there have been some fine commissioners who were extremely interested in wildlife and the folks who hunt and fish. There have been others who from day one were mostly interested in complaining, nitpicking, threatening and harassing employees of the department, and voting against things that were important to wildlife but disliked by agriculture and industry.
Some of these commissioners didn't really hunt or fish, had little interest in wildlife and were mainly representing the special interests that promoted them as commissioners. Some believed they were appointed for life and are still running around spreading hate and dissension.
During deliberations of the commission, the good folks have been out-voted by those whose goals didn't include what was best for wildlife. I got an education about how all of this worked one day coming out of a bathroom at a commission meeting when I overheard several ranchers and heads of the agricultural organizations discussing "... how to maintain control of the Game and Fish Department ..." without Les Henderson and Tracy Hunt on the Game and Fish Commission. The actions of a couple of subsequent appointees answered that question.
Just a few of the actions of Game and Fish Commissions since the director became a political appointee illustrate my point:
* Playing "Let's Make a Deal" with damage claims, paying people for damage that wasn't proven.
* Constantly suggesting changes in formulas for calculating damage payments.
* Constantly censoring Wyoming Wildlife and Wyoming Wildlife News. Nothing remotely critical of agriculture, oil and gas, mining or timbering could be printed, and pictures of animals [that] ranchers or farmers [or] certain commissioners didn't like could not appear in either publication.
* Threatening department employees with disciplinary action if anyone spoke or thought the word "wolf," then lying about it when challenged by teachers who wanted information on wolves.
* Demanding an investigation when two sets of information on wolves prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be used by teachers were discovered in regional offices.
* Beating the hell out of the director of the Game and Fish Department in executive session at every meeting of the commission, prompting him to quit even though he wasn't yet eligible to retire.
* Executive sessions longer than regular meetings of the commission, with topics that should have been discussed in open session.
* Demanding work on sensitive species to help agriculture and industry, then scrapping months or years of work because of political agendas and personal biases.
* Putting what was good for wildlife last.
* Overtly opposing alternative funding for the Game and Fish Department after encouraging the department to seek such funding.
* Commissioners who didn't get their way actively opposing decisions of the commission.
* Attacks on public land, public ownership of wildlife and instream flow even though these are in the nation's or state's constitutions or state law.
* Constant interference with the everyday workings of the Game and Fish Department.
* Insisting that the employees of the Game and Fish Department aren't wildlife advocates. If they aren't, who is?
* Finally, although I could go on, the ultimate indication of what these folks have been up to -- forwarding the name of someone from the Department of Agriculture as a candidate for Director of the Game and Fish Department.
This would have completed capture of the Game and Fish Department by agriculture, and in combination with the bill introduced in the last session of the Legislature "allowing" the agency director to hire two politically appointed assistants, could have placed three ag-oriented political hacks at the top of the Game and Fish Department.
This would certainly provide a good atmosphere for licenses for landowners, forage compensation and game farms.
Gov. Dave Freudenthal has said it is the job of the Game and Fish Department and the Game and Fish Commission to do what's best for wildlife, whether that means there is disagreement with commodity producers or not. Commissioners who believe otherwise should spend some time reading the statutes that created the commission and the department.
The governor has just appointed two new commissioners. I hope these are people who care about wildlife and the folks who hunt and fish, and not just out to make certain the Game and Fish Department is commodity-friendly.
Early signs are promising, but hunters and anglers need to pay attention and make certain the Game and Fish Commission does what is best for wildlife and those who pay the bills -- the license buyers.
The politicians put into office by hunters and anglers have made certain the Game and Fish Department is now allowed to watch out for the welfare of hunters and anglers. The last governor's "one voice" policy was no different than the censorship practiced by Hitler, Stalin or Saddam Hussein, with no contrary opinions allowed and punishment for those voiced.
Sticking up for wildlife requires contrary opinions, but these days, sticking up for wildlife is a dangerous and depressing business. I hope your hunting and fishing has improved while you were letting these folks do what they wanted with your fish and wildlife. Mine hasn't.
Harry Harju retired in December from his post as assistant Wildlife Division chief with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department."
