Colorado wildlife heading for precipice

[Oak]

Am I the only CO hunter on here who cares about this? Yeah, I thought so.

Wildlife experts blast Owens
Ex-DOW officials: Business interests trump protection
By Theo Stein
Denver Post Environment Writer

Former top officials in the Colorado Division of Wildlife are blasting Gov. Bill Owens' administration for what they say is a pattern of favoring businesses and groups that want to use the forests over protection of wildlife.
Critics, including a former Division of Wildlife director and a top researcher, charge that Owens' Department of Natural Resources has limited wildlife managers' ability to comment to the federal government on new national forest plans, off-road use of motorized vehicles and other development.

Perry Olson, director of the Division of Wildlife from 1988 to 1995, is one of 58 former employees who wrote Owens last week complaining that the administration has systematically degraded the DOW's ability to protect wildlife and its habitat.

"It just seems to me that the amount of political control that is exerted at the decision-making level is just being blown way out of proportion by this administration," Olson said. "And I'm a Republican, damn it."

Full (long) story

Oak

 

[Nut]

This seems to be the latest trends Oak.

Very sad indeed that BIG corporations are controlling the governments decisions and not the voters.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Oak,

It sounds a bit worse than Idaho, but there are similarities. The Biologists getting muffled is a HUGE problem.

One man, who is committed, can actually do a huge amount. Don't give up, but see if you can make a difference.

In Idaho, Reed Burkholder got tired of not seeing the Salmon, and he came up with the breeching. One man, one voice, and now look at his progress.

Similarly, Jon Marvel was one man who got tired of cows in the Sawtooths. One man, one voice, and now look at his progress.

You can't take on the whole system, but you can take on the part that is the weakest, and leverage that victory to the the next battle.

 

[chambero]

Colorado Oak:

After reading the article briefly, it sounds like the DOW is pushing some things that helps hunting, some that don't. It doesn't sound like either side is consistently in our favor. What specifically do you not like? For example, I would be skeptical of a study that tries to say predators don't significantly impact mule deer populations; however, their effects are most likely dwarfed by transition of forests to older vegetation resulting in a loss of forbs for deer. The off-road vehicle issue would definitely be a concern. DOW really doesn't have much control over it though. The land mgmt agency (i.e. USFS & BLM) gets to control road use.

All state government agencies are really getting hammered budget wise. You wouldn't believe the things getting cut in Texas. Unfortunately, they have no choice-they just don't have the money.

What are your thoughts and what are some specific issues people should be aware of and possibly submit comments to DOW on (not that they would care what a nonresident says)?

 

[Oak]

Let me give you some details that may help to understand the situation. The DOW is under the Department of Natural Resources, which also includes the Departments of Parks, Water, Geology, Oil and Gas, Land, Mining, and Forestry. The DOW, however, is the only one of those that is not funded by the State. It's funded by you and me. The good Gov. Owens and his appointed lackey Greg Walcher (Director of DNR) were unhappy about how little control they had over the DOW, so in 2000 they sent out a memo to all DOW employees that said there would be no public comments made on any subject, to land management agencies, media, etc., without the comments first crossing the desk of Walcher himself and getting his approval. That made it possible for Owens and Walcher to effectively filter every bit of information coming from the DOW.

Now the article doesn't say it, but the mule deer study in question did not say that predators had little impact on population. The results said that many factors may be contributing to the decline, including habitat loss and degradation, disease, predation, over-harvest, and an increase in the elk population*. The DNR was upset that the scientist doing the study didn't come out and say that predators were the #1 problem.

As for the USFS road issue, of course the DOW doesn't have control over it. However, the USFS asked the DOW biologists for information on the effects to wildlife of non-permitted roads on the forest. The biologists submitted their concerns, through the information-filter Walcher of course, and he chose not to pass along the biologists concerns. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The biologists urged closure of unpermitted roads. Walcher's official comments said the Forest Service should not close roads unless it could prove they were detrimental to wildlife and urged officials to allow existing unpermitted roads without further studies. **<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Walcher told the USFS to prove it, after his own biologists already had! The biologists don't want to get their way on every issue, they just want their info to make it to the appropriate people unfiltered <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"I don't think anyone at the DOW expects to prevail every time," said former wildlife manager Gene Byrne. The biologists "just want to have their input heard," he said. "If policymakers want to disregard it or temper it, that's their prerogative. But to cut us off at the knees is inexcusable."**<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know what really infuriates Owens and Walcher? All that money generated through hunting and fishing license sales sitting in the DOW coffers, and no way for them to get their hands on it. So they've proposed a plan to consolidate all nine natural resources divisions under one roof(literally). They claim that the plan may save the state $15-$20 million a year in operating costs. But they're not acknowledging how much the plan is going to cost hunters. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Among several concerns is the impact such a move would have on the Division of Wildlife, by far the largest of the natural resource agencies. DOW owns the complex of buildings it occupies at 6060 Broadway. Rent it might pay on a costly new building, prorated based on number of employees, would represent a major expense.

Such financial concerns are magnified against the backdrop of longstanding efforts by other elements of state government to squeeze money from DOW. The wildlife agency collects its own revenues, largely through license sales, and receives no money from Colorado's general fund.

For example, DOW contributes some $3.5 million in an annual assessment toward the DNR budget for administrative and computer services. Inexplicably, that payment represents $1.1 million more than the supposed fair-share formula would indicate.

Add to this the cost of moving DOW's bulging inventory of files and equipment and the loss of centralized public service and meeting facilities once the Broadway property is sold, and the price tag appears onerous.***<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So is that where our license fees should be going? Walcher has requested that all divisions make recommendations about where cuts can be made in their departments. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Walcher has organized working groups at each agency to explore the feasibility of the move, but insiders believe the project is being pushed along under a veil that discourages disagreement. When questioned on the particulars of the plan and what it might mean to wildlife management, several DOW employees said they had been told not to comment.***<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chambero:
After reading the article briefly, it sounds like the DOW is pushing some things that helps hunting, some that don't. It doesn't sound like either side is consistently in our favor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chambero, you make an excellent point. Unfortunately, most hunters put their own wants ahead of the wildlife they're hunting. The DOW generally puts wildlife first when making policy. Therefore, their policies may not always reflect what is "good" for hunters, but rather what is good for wildlife.

Oak

References, for those who care.

* Mule Deer Study
** Article One
*** Article Two

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-17-2003 14:01: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>

 

[chambero]

Thanks for the detailed response. Sounds like Colorado needs a new governor. As bad as it often is, one benefit of our bureaucratic agency processes is that it usually prevents political heads of government agencies from doing too much damage before they get voted out at the next election. Hopefully that will be the case in Colorado.