Bill To keep wildlife management decisions in the hands of the State Professionals?

[Tylerm]

As someone who lives in Colorado has children and is concerned with the future of hunting. I have a question for the experts here on Hunt Talk. One of the most common ways it seems to attack our hunting rights is the passing of state bills. Such as the Wild Cat hunting Bill currently in play in Arizona and this is the same way we here in Colorado had our bear seasons dismantled. Wildlife management by the masses not by the professionals at the state levels in the state wildlife agencies.

Forgive me if I word this poorly.

Has there ever been a bill introduced in a state legislature that would propose to keep wildlife management decisions in the hands of the state agencies thus keeping the authority at the state agency level instead of having bills override their wishes?

Of course, the obvious fear is that the state wildlife agency becomes against hunting on a moral ground then they would have control. But for the most part state wildlife agencies are still on board with hunting more so than the groups that keep attacking our hunting seasons.

I am just throwing this out there. What are your thoughts?

 

[Bambistew]

Seems like a great idea, as long as politics don't override management. I'm not a fan of ballot box wildlife management.

 

[ID_to_NV2012]

wildlife is a state trust

I may not be an expert but I have lots of opinions..........I haven't heard of any legislation to "keep" the wildlife management decisions in the hands of the state. I think that with the changing of governors, the wildlife commissioners could drastically change how wildlife is managed. Most wildlife experts are there because they grew up hunting and fishing, they are working dream jobs that give them the ability to work with a resource they cherish. Here in Nevada we run the risk of losing our bear seasons because of pro-bear, anti-hunters. WE as hunters, need to come together and support our wildlife agencies and voice a stronger message to the anti-hunting crowd that we will not lose our heritage. We see politics supersede science based management all the time, it will never go away but hopefully it will slow down.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's an idea that sounds great on paper, but becomes strange and complex as hell in application.

Many states require statutory changes to the price of licenses, designation of game animals, fines, etc and the best way to make necessary changes is through the legislative process. We've battled legislators for a very long time across every state who think they should be commissioners who set seasons, etc. Some of them are well meaning, just not educated on the process, others are on personal vendettas against game agencies.

the commission process still remains the best way to manage wildlife held in trust by the states. The desire to stop ballot initiatives like the bobcat ban in AZ, spring bear in CO (or however they did it), etc is noble, but we need to look at what happens when we remove the ballot initiative process from our side as well. In MT alone, there would still be game farms, cyanide heap leach mining and if not for the threat of ballot initiatives on things like stream access and corner-crossing, our legislature would be going whole hog on the anti-public lands agenda.

Wyoming has severely onerous restrictions on ballot initiatives that I think go too far. A happy medium between the MT and WY model may be worth looking at in order to raise the bar on how we place things on ballots, but overall, I'd hate to lose my freedom to seek redress against my government in favor of not fighting a fight. Wildlife is held in trust by the state for ALL people. That means anti-hunters as well as hunters. We need to be able to work together to educate people so that hunting and angling will always be a part of our wildlife management scenarios, while recognizing that there are real threats to our way of life.

I just don't think eliminating freedoms for others is a good way to protect our way of life. Vigilance, activism and education do more to protect hunting & angling than any law ever will.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Utah to the rescue! Already tested all the way to US Supreme Court. https://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Supermajority_for_Hunting_Initiatives,_Proposition_5_(1998)

News story from 1998 which outlines the process and those involved. Love Karl Malone. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/660005/Proposition-5-Shootout.html

Good luck and great foresight.

 

[one ate E grain]

Tylerm, our undoing here in our Columbine state is the ballot initiative, that's how spring bear, bear baiting, bear running with dogs, and all trapping except those have a heart type traps were banned. The bear vote was around 70/30, we got trounced, trapping was much closer at 52/48. One in 92, the second in 96. I don't know if you followed the news this summer but we were having big issues with bears, not sure how many the DOW euthanized, scores.

There was also a ballot initiative last year to require ballot initiatives to reach a certain threshold of signatures in every county or state senate district, I forget which, before they could go on the ballot. It failed. The idea was that if an idea wasn't popular enough to reach a certain amount of support in western rural counties, it wouldn't get on the ballot. I liked it. I'm not conservative by any means but I respect the judgement of Colorado conservatives out on the west slope, they are an open minded and thoughtful bunch. We have too many ballot initiatives, many of them don't get thought over very deeply before people vote. Also people can be uninformed, such as with bear hunting. I hope to see a repeat of that more restrictive method of ballot initiative, I'd vote for it again.

 

[Oak]

Tylerm, our undoing here in our Columbine state is the ballot initiative, that's how spring bear, bear baiting, bear running with dogs, and all trapping except those have a heart type traps were banned. The bear vote was around 70/30, we got trounced, trapping was much closer at 52/48. One in 92, the second in 96. I don't know if you followed the news this summer but we were having big issues with bears, not sure how many the DOW euthanized, scores.

It's important to note that Initiative 10 in 1992 which banned spring bear hunting and hunting with hounds was an initiated state statute, and can be changed via state legislation. Initiative 14 in 1996 which banned most use of leghold and body-gripping traps was an initiated constitutional amendment.

There was also a ballot initiative last year to require ballot initiatives to reach a certain threshold of signatures in every county or state senate district, I forget which, before they could go on the ballot. It failed. The idea was that if an idea wasn't popular enough to reach a certain amount of support in western rural counties, it wouldn't get on the ballot. I liked it. I'm not conservative by any means but I respect the judgement of Colorado conservatives out on the west slope, they are an open minded and thoughtful bunch. We have too many ballot initiatives, many of them don't get thought over very deeply before people vote. Also people can be uninformed, such as with bear hunting. I hope to see a repeat of that more restrictive method of ballot initiative, I'd vote for it again.

Amendment 71 actually passed by about a 66-44 margin. It requires signatures from 2% of the registered voters in each of the state's 35 senate districts. It also requires a 55% yes vote to pass an amendment. There is talk about a 2018 ballot initiative to repeal Amendment 71 and to allow electronic signatures to initiate constitutional amendment initiatives.

 

[vanish]

I hope to see a repeat of that more restrictive method of ballot initiative, I'd vote for it again.

Why would it repeat? It passed. https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Im...onstitutional_Amendments,_Amendment_71_(2016)

 

[Tylerm]

Well, I assumed it had happened somewhere it's interesting that Utah has already passed something along the same lines.

I guess I should be more clear, I'm not attached to this idea I was just wanted to get more informed peoples opinions.

I am aware that ballot initiatives have not been the greatest for hunters in Colorado that is why I brought up the question. I don't see Colorado getting any more friendly for hunters or even the west as that goes as population centers increase it will only more and more exaggerated.

I would imagine that the passing of Amendment 71 would make it much more difficult for Denver and the front range to completely dictate the direction of Amendments in the state. And would make the passing of more wildlife legislation more difficult.

One other question, has anyone taken a run at getting a spring bear season reinstated in CO via an Amendment? By the way, I have lived and hunted all over the west including Wyoming, Montana, Arizona and Utah and I have never seen the numbers of bears that Colorado has. in some areas and nobody actively hunts them which is crazy. If Colorado had a spring season we would have one of the best in the country now since we haven't been able to hunt them effectively for years.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Utah to the rescue! Already tested all the way to US Supreme Court. https://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Supermajority_for_Hunting_Initiatives,_Proposition_5_(1998)

News story from 1998 which outlines the process and those involved. Love Karl Malone. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/660005/Proposition-5-Shootout.html

Good luck and great foresight.

Interesting. I'd have to read the actual decision to see why it was so, but I imagine it's based on the UT state constitution's demarcation of responsibilities regarding what you can and cannot do via imitative. In order for this to be applicable across state lines, each state constitution would have to be similar to UT's. In MT, this would be considered unconstitutional based on how we have defined the initiative process.

 

[one ate E grain]

initiated state statute, initiated constitutional amendment.....Amendment 71 actually passed etc.

Thanks so much for straightening me out Oak, I'd no idea of the difference, though I'm sorry to hear the anti trapping thing is now part of the CO constitution. Glad to hear 71 passed, there was so much weeping and wailing after the 16 elections I was doing other things at the time and didn't check out how things ended up at the state level. I should pay closer attention to state issues and familiarize myself with the process.

 

[one ate E grain]

initiated state statute, initiated constitutional amendment.....Amendment 71 actually passed etc.

Thanks so much for straightening me out Oak, I'd no idea of the difference, though I'm sorry to hear the anti trapping thing is now part of the CO constitution. Glad to hear 71 passed, there was so much weeping and wailing after the 16 elections I was doing other things at the time and didn't check out how things ended up at the state level. I should pay closer attention to state issues and familiarize myself with the process.