Fresh Tracks Weekly - Conflicted Wildlife Trustees (Commissioners)

To the point of conflicts of interest by Commissioners, or even the appearance of conflict, there is a situation in Wyoming that @JM77 has been sharing a lot of information on. He's sick as a dog, so I offered to post it here on HT.

Many of you read about the landowner trying to close a County Road outside of Casper, WY. It is a road that leads to a lot of public hunting ground. Link below:


The attorney representing the landowner in the case is John A. Masterson. His law firm link is here - https://www.wsmtlaw.com/attorneys/john-a-masterson.html

Mr. Masterson is also a Wyoming G&F Commissioner for District 7 - https://wgfd.wyo.gov/commission

This is a head scratcher. Maybe the justification that he should have no concern is that since he is legal counsel in a lawsuit against the County and not WYG&F, there is no appearance of conflict.

Wyoming hunters, who are likely expecting their Commission to represent their interest on this topic, seem to be at risk of losing a lot of access to great public hunting grounds if this case prevails against the County.

Back to my point of "appearance of conflict = conflict in fact." That concept, getting more common each year, is part of the concerns focused on in this video.

Whether Mr. Masterson is the straightest arrow in the quiver and would never be influenced by a client matter in how he represents or advocates for hunters as a G&F Commissioner, the appearance of conflict is damaging to the trust hunters have in their appointed officials.

If any of you are Wyoming hunters, I'd be interested to know if the optics of this situation diminish your faith that Mr. Masterson will represent your interest without bias/conflict if/when WYG&F weighs in on the issue?

Or, maybe WYG&F will not weigh in due to the fact that Mr. Masterson is on the Commission. Which if his presence as Commissioner is enough to keep the Department from weighing in (if they do weigh in on access issues), that seems to be just as damaging to hunting access.

I wish this one had been out there when I recorded the video. It would have, and should, make for some interesting conversations.
@Big Fin Thanks for getting this out there Randy. No doubt, the comments from the G&F will be far different, if any, with a Commissioner involved. The new owner IMO, is most concerned about limiting access to hunting for personal reasons. The previous rancher never had any issue, CR505 has been considered a county road for 100 years, always maintained by the county.
 
@Big Fin Thanks for getting this out there Randy. No doubt, the comments from the G&F will be far different, if any, with a Commissioner involved. The new owner IMO, is most concerned about limiting access to hunting for personal reasons. The previous rancher never had any issue, CR505 has been considered a county road for 100 years, always maintained by the county.
I’m curious, is this something the WY G&F would typically comment on? I could see reasons why, like public users of the road are often hunters and fishermen. But I can also see why they might just say it is an issue between the county and landowner. G&F might be hesitant to jump into every discussion on county roads?
 
I’m curious, is this something the WY G&F would typically comment on? I could see reasons why, like public users of the road are often hunters and fishermen. But I can also see why they might just say it is an issue between the county and landowner. G&F might be hesitant to jump into every discussion on county roads?
In this case the road is paramount to access for the HMA and other public land. Most certainly the G&F would comment given the current state of affairs with over objective elk in the Laramie Range. During the winter months, 505 is typically closed just before the ranch entrance. Years ago, G&F, Sheriffs Dept, myself and Road and Bridge all worked with the previous landowner for winter access via utv, atv or snowmobile for late season cow elk, predator hunting, Mtn Lion hunting and trapping to name a few. A special gate was installed to allow those vehicles through for access.
 
To the point of conflicts of interest by Commissioners, or even the appearance of conflict, there is a situation in Wyoming that @JM77 has been sharing a lot of information on. He's sick as a dog, so I offered to post it here on HT.

Many of you read about the landowner trying to close a County Road outside of Casper, WY. It is a road that leads to a lot of public hunting ground. Link below:


The attorney representing the landowner in the case is John A. Masterson. His law firm link is here - https://www.wsmtlaw.com/attorneys/john-a-masterson.html

Mr. Masterson is also a Wyoming G&F Commissioner for District 7 - https://wgfd.wyo.gov/commission

This is a head scratcher. Maybe the justification that he should have no concern is that since he is legal counsel in a lawsuit against the County and not WYG&F, there is no appearance of conflict.

Wyoming hunters, who are likely expecting their Commission to represent their interest on this topic, seem to be at risk of losing a lot of access to great public hunting grounds if this case prevails against the County.

Back to my point of "appearance of conflict = conflict in fact." That concept, getting more common each year, is part of the concerns focused on in this video.

Whether Mr. Masterson is the straightest arrow in the quiver and would never be influenced by a client matter in how he represents or advocates for hunters as a G&F Commissioner, the appearance of conflict is damaging to the trust hunters have in their appointed officials.

If any of you are Wyoming hunters, I'd be interested to know if the optics of this situation diminish your faith that Mr. Masterson will represent your interest without bias/conflict if/when WYG&F weighs in on the issue?

Or, maybe WYG&F will not weigh in due to the fact that Mr. Masterson is on the Commission. Which if his presence as Commissioner is enough to keep the Department from weighing in (if they do weigh in on access issues), that seems to be just as damaging to hunting access.

I wish this one had been out there when I recorded the video. It would have, and should, make for some interesting conversations.

As like anyone else, residents, especially, I'll be watching closely. We've already had a county road closed earlier this year (or they allege was NOT a county road), so to see a second one go under attack like this does make me worry. Even worse when we got someone from the Commission who's hands are all over it. Dirty situation that needs a lot of visibility.
 
In this case the road is paramount to access for the HMA and other public land. Most certainly the G&F would comment given the current state of affairs with over objective elk in the Laramie Range. During the winter months, 505 is typically closed just before the ranch entrance. Years ago, G&F, Sheriffs Dept, myself and Road and Bridge all worked with the previous landowner for winter access via utv, atv or snowmobile for late season cow elk, predator hunting, Mtn Lion hunting and trapping to name a few. A special gate was installed to allow those vehicles through for access.
That makes sense. Maybe the owner is crying for help. LOL.
The issue of conflicts of interest is complicated, to say the least. The commissioner in question has to be able to make a living so I don't see issue with him taking the case. I also tend to doubt that the Commission (as a whole) is opining on this road, but I get your point as to why the G&F might. If G&F changes or avoids public comment based on a G&F commissioner being the lawyer for the defendant, then that is kind of on the G&F. And that sucks. It seems that the question is on whether people can operate freely and objectively without outside pressures. (In that respect, we need more people like @BuzzH.) Someone should be slightly irritated in every circumstance. It's called compromised. What is being brought to light here is that the view that the G&F can't operate openly against the Commission, or specifically, a commissioner. However, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Bring these things out into the open should be the way to motivate people to do what is right.
 
And now it gets worse


County officials argued that Natrona County has used and maintained the road for years and that the public uses it to access BLM land and a campground. Also, County Road 505 is on maps and is marked with county signage.

Without proof of ownership of the road, however, the county can’t just claim it because of what it’s done on it in the past, the judge ruled.

The county continues to search for documents proving ownership. In the meantime, the county commission recently began legal efforts to establish the road as a county road through “prescription” or “adverse possession.”
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,877
Messages
1,973,430
Members
35,365
Latest member
Vermonthoosier547
Back
Top