Post by: idahohuntr on March 11, 2015, 01:30:28 PM
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/commission/letter/ (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/commission/letter/)
Fish & Game Commission Process Should Be Protected
By Commissioners Fred Trevey (chairman), Mark Doerr (vice-chair), Brad Corkill, Blake Fischer, Lane Clezie, Kenny Anderson and Will Naillon
There appears to be a misperception among some Idaho lawmakers that the Fish and Game Commission has ignored prior legislative directives to raise revenue and improve habitat and access. These directives include allowing hunters to pay an extra fee to improve their drawing odds for controlled hunts (bonus points), making tags available to land owners for private sale, and auctioning big game tags to highest bidders.
We certainly respect the Legislature's role in setting wildlife policy but the Commission has considered all these issues in recent years and vetted each of them with hunters, anglers, trappers and the general public. In all three cases, a majority made it clear to us they were opposed and we acted accordingly. The Commission continues to explore these and other options and to visit with sportsmen and women about them. However, we have heard and are concerned these directives could become legislative mandates linked to our proposed license revenue bill.
The Commission-supported "Price Lock" revenue legislation — House Bill 32, is being held in a House Committee while some lawmakers are said to be working on their own version with these mandates included. If this new version of the bill emerges, it in our view, overrules the Commission process of using science and input from the public as the basis for implementing wildlife policy.
The 1938 citizens' initiative that created the Commission established nonpartisan fish and game management. If lawmakers proceed and attempt to bypass the Commission and implement these measures through legislation, they are compromising the spirit of that initiative by overruling extensive sportsmen involvement and thoughtful Commission deliberations.
As Commissioners, here are some common themes we often hear:
•Manage wildlife for the good of all Idahoans, not just a privileged few.
•Keep hunting, fishing & trapping opportunities available and affordable for everyday Idahoans.
•Reward landowners for supporting wildlife habitat or public access without sacrificing state ownership of wildlife.
•Keep politics out of wildlife management.
For 76 years, the Commission, along with sportsmen and women have worked together to create the tremendous wildlife resources and heritage we have in Idaho today. We ask the Legislature to pass the Commission-supported revenue bill without compromising the Commission's integrity and its management role.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 11, 2015, 01:40:19 PM
Post by: grundy53 on March 11, 2015, 02:01:39 PM
But where do you draw the line at keeping politics out? Commission members appointed by the governor seems political. Having Conservation NW on the commission seems political. The baiting proposals being explored because it is a 'social perception' not a scientific one. Letting the chemical corporations influence research....:yeah:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 11, 2015, 02:16:33 PM
We would be better if everyone would leave emotions out of wildlife management
Post by: idahohuntr on March 11, 2015, 02:23:33 PM
But where do you draw the line at keeping politics out? Commission members appointed by the governor seems political. Having Conservation NW on the commission seems political. The baiting proposals being explored because it is a 'social perception' not a scientific one. Letting the chemical corporations influence research....You draw the line at broad policy direction. Legislators should not be circumventing sportsmen public involvement process because they provide a different answer than what a powerful few want. Nor should legislators direct specific research methods and meddle with normal scientific process. There will always be politics, but in this case the IDFG commission is doing exactly what sportsmen should expect of their commission and hitting back when legislators get out of their lane...could their be consequences to those folks and might it play into future appointments and vetting? You bet.
In the wolf de-listing example, legislators got involved only when a fringe group kept de-railing what was common sense...wolves were not in need of ESA protection.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 11, 2015, 02:28:34 PM
sadly, wolves might still be listed if it weren't for politicians forcing their hand.I agree for ID/MT/WY, but in WA I think the legislators are likely to keep them listed longer. I recall Kevin Ranker going bonkers when the WDFW went after the Wedge pack.
We would be better if everyone would leave emotions out of wildlife management
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 11, 2015, 02:41:26 PM
sadly, wolves might still be listed if it weren't for politicians forcing their hand.
We would be better if everyone would leave emotions out of wildlife management
In addition, we have ballot initiatives which tie the hands of the WDFW and wildlife commission, and the WDFW and commission won't even inform the public about the projected effects. The baiting initiative was voted through without Wildlife comment even though they could have made projections showing the effect that it would have on bear and cougar populations, and the increased amount of human/wildlife conflict. In addition, they refused to make any statement on the expected impact of I-594 on their programs and our hunters. They didn't have to take sides. They only had to show effect. They didn't. Now, our legislators have to take action. WA is not ID, MT, and WY. That's painfully obvious.
Post by: Hunter4Life on March 11, 2015, 02:49:33 PM
sadly, wolves might still be listed if it weren't for politicians forcing their hand.I agree for ID/MT/WY, but in WA I think the legislators are likely to keep them listed longer. I recall Kevin Ranker going bonkers when the WDFW went after the Wedge pack.
We would be better if everyone would leave emotions out of wildlife management
Ranker did go bonkers.
Post by: bigtex on March 11, 2015, 04:50:08 PM
So do you just not want politics/politicians involved with fish and wildlife management when it's not in your view?
Post by: bigtex on March 11, 2015, 04:51:03 PM
Ranker also just voted for the wolf bill that would change the wolf management plan.Ranker did go bonkers.sadly, wolves might still be listed if it weren't for politicians forcing their hand.I agree for ID/MT/WY, but in WA I think the legislators are likely to keep them listed longer. I recall Kevin Ranker going bonkers when the WDFW went after the Wedge pack.
We would be better if everyone would leave emotions out of wildlife management
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 11, 2015, 05:10:12 PM
Most on here were happy to see that politicians just voted to get involved with the WDFW created wolf management plan.When was the last time they weren't? Probably the sector of F&W most affected by politics is from commercial fishing. That lobby buys tons of influence. How else do you counter them? Is it bad to want politicians to try to reverse hound/baiting laws?
So do you just not want politics/politicians involved with fish and wildlife management when it's not in your view?
How would it even work if there was no politics involved in a statewide (even interstate--marine) public resource? Shift the fish and wildlife over to private ownership and let them fall under private property rights?
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 11, 2015, 05:17:30 PM
Most on here were happy to see that politicians just voted to get involved with the WDFW created wolf management plan.
So do you just not want politics/politicians involved with fish and wildlife management when it's not in your view?
The wolf management plan was too extreme to begin with. We're seeing now that by the time the correct disbursement goals are met (which could be never), the wolves are going to do an awful lot of damage in the NE corner of the state, at the very least. It was a mistake and it seems obvious they're not going to do anything about amending it, especially with a commission stacked with greenies. Are there any other choices than going to the legislature? Should WA citizens watch their assets and their wildlife go down the tubes, or maybe take wolf management into their own hands? I don't find that viable, mostly because it gives the wolf lovers the ammo they need to lock up the people they don't like anyway - the hunters and ranchers of WA. I see few other choices than to attack this through the legislature. Maybe you have another suggestion, BT. :dunno:
Post by: mfswallace on March 11, 2015, 07:18:44 PM
Most on here were happy to see that politicians just voted to get involved with the WDFW created wolf management plan.
So do you just not want politics/politicians involved with fish and wildlife management when it's not in your view?
:yeah:
Post by: dreamunelk on March 11, 2015, 07:35:52 PM
Just think of what we have lost because of politics!
Baiting
Hounds
Gun rights
other?
Don't kid yourself the politicians are right there during the initiative process. Biology not politics! Unless it is to vote someone who does not support hunting out :chuckle:
Most don't understand the science. Those of us hunters that do continually support it even when you are insulting and bashing us. Ever wonder why? Give some thought to it!
We take our hunting and environment seriously!
Post by: mfswallace on March 11, 2015, 08:29:22 PM
If you think politicians didn't have a finger in the wolf plan you are horribly mistaken.
Just think of what we have lost because of politics!
Baiting
Hounds
Gun rights
other?
Don't kid yourself the politicians are right there during the initiative process. Biology not politics! Unless it is to vote someone who does not support hunting out :chuckle:
Most don't understand the science. Those of us hunters that do continually support it even when you are insulting and bashing us. Ever wonder why? Give some thought to it!
We take our hunting and environment seriously!
If science is taken so seriously why wasn't a study of ungulates done before wolves were turned loose on them?
Post by: idahohuntr on March 11, 2015, 08:40:06 PM
Most on here were happy to see that politicians just voted to get involved with the WDFW created wolf management plan.No. I oppose political interference at such a detailed level even if it supports/favors actions that lead to outcomes I support on the principle that legislators should not direct in such a detailed way fish and wildlife management. I concur with the IDFG commission statement on this issue. Politicians set broad policy, commissioners entrusted with managing the public's fish and wildlife will handle the details...that is the model I support...realizing of course there will always be backroom deals by sleazy politicians.
So do you just not want politics/politicians involved with fish and wildlife management when it's not in your view?
Post by: mfswallace on March 11, 2015, 09:40:44 PM
Most on here were happy to see that politicians just voted to get involved with the WDFW created wolf management plan.No. I oppose political interference at such a detailed level even if it supports/favors actions that lead to outcomes I support on the principle that legislators should not direct in such a detailed way fish and wildlife management. I concur with the IDFG commission statement on this issue. Politicians set broad policy, commissioners entrusted with managing the public's fish and wildlife will handle the details...that is the model I support...realizing of course there will always be backroom deals by sleazy politicians.
So do you just not want politics/politicians involved with fish and wildlife management when it's not in your view?
What then when the backroom deals are done by sleazy WDFW commissions appointed by sleazy anti leaning politicians :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: sakoshooter on March 12, 2015, 07:37:33 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 12, 2015, 08:05:32 AM
Post by: wolfbait on March 13, 2015, 07:45:27 AM
But where do you draw the line at keeping politics out? Commission members appointed by the governor seems political. Having Conservation NW on the commission seems political. The baiting proposals being explored because it is a 'social perception' not a scientific one. Letting the chemical corporations influence research....You draw the line at broad policy direction.
Legislators should not be circumventing sportsmen public involvement process because they provide a different answer than what a powerful few want. Nor should legislators direct specific research methods and meddle with normal scientific process. There will always be politics, but in this case the IDFG commission is doing exactly what sportsmen should expect of their commission and hitting back when legislators get out of their lane...could their be consequences to those folks and might it play into future appointments and vetting? You bet.
In the wolf de-listing example, legislators got involved only when a fringe group kept de-railing what was common sense...wolves were not in need of ESA protection.
IDFG Continues to Deny It Violated Idaho Law
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%2039%20May%202010-IDFG%20Continues%20to%20Deny.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%2039%20May%202010-IDFG%20Continues%20to%20Deny.pdf)
Poor Attendance at “Idaho Wildlife Summit” Reflects
Citizen Mistrust of F&G Refusal to Manage Wildlife
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2050%20Sept%202012-Summit.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2050%20Sept%202012-Summit.pdf)
It’s Time for Elected Officials to Take the Blinders
Off and Admit Their State F & G’s Real Agenda
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%2041%20Sept-Dec%202010.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%2041%20Sept-Dec%202010.pdf)
Anything But Science
"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations."
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf)
Do You Have the Courage to Admit the Truth?
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2047%20January%202012-%20Do%20you%20have%20the%20courage%20to%20admit%20the%20truth..pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2047%20January%202012-%20Do%20you%20have%20the%20courage%20to%20admit%20the%20truth..pdf)
Post by: mfswallace on March 13, 2015, 08:33:24 AM
It's sad that other won't read because it comes from someone who they don't agree with even though you didn't write it. I know I read all that folks on both sides of the aisle post to at the very least know what others think...
Post by: idahohuntr on March 13, 2015, 09:36:24 AM
Perhaps you two could go start your tinfoil hat thread elsewhere. This one involves a state commission sticking up for average sportsmen. Thanks.
Post by: mfswallace on March 13, 2015, 10:04:10 AM
:jacked:
Perhaps you two could go start your tinfoil hat thread elsewhere. This one involves a state commission sticking up for average sportsmen. Thanks.
WB's post seems very relevant to this thread as it highlights why legislation is sometimes Needed to keep the idfg commission honest :twocents:
I know you don't like admitting that sometimes these commissions actually hurt average sportsmen but that I the reality unfortunately