FREAK
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
- Messages
- 1,083
I think we could all argue till we're blue in the face about regulations and what we could implement to fix the issues we're seeing. I'm sure for every great point made there will be a few good counter points and we'll go in circles. I think the organizations that are making the most impact are the ones that come to the commissioners with a unified message (MOGA, BHA, Etc.). Someone correct me if i'm wrong as i'm no expert in this area.
I feel like it is hard to make an impact by just emailing commissioner, biologists, and attending meetings but maybe I'm wrong there as well? Or maybe there is a different/more impactful thing I could be doing that I don't know about.
Is this model of organizations like BHA the moset effective approach? Forming a organization, appointing leaders, and comming up with a unified message that represents a subset of hunters? Maybe it's a regional organization that has a leader and is made up of private land owners, outfitters, and average joe hunters. They would feel more comfortable presenting their ideas and not always have to feel like their fighting commisioners just to keep things status quo.
I guess my point is, I think we're putting the cart before the horse when we default to arguing about what specific regs need changed rather than spending our energy on discussing if the mechanism for change works or needs to be fixed. Also, are there currently groups or organizations that are making significant changes within the constraints of the current system and how are they doing it? The 313 boundry change is a good example of some group having the ear of the commisioner to the point they implemented a change disregarding the input from the regional biologist. Seems like that group is doing something better than most when it comes to effecting change.
I feel like it is hard to make an impact by just emailing commissioner, biologists, and attending meetings but maybe I'm wrong there as well? Or maybe there is a different/more impactful thing I could be doing that I don't know about.
Is this model of organizations like BHA the moset effective approach? Forming a organization, appointing leaders, and comming up with a unified message that represents a subset of hunters? Maybe it's a regional organization that has a leader and is made up of private land owners, outfitters, and average joe hunters. They would feel more comfortable presenting their ideas and not always have to feel like their fighting commisioners just to keep things status quo.
I guess my point is, I think we're putting the cart before the horse when we default to arguing about what specific regs need changed rather than spending our energy on discussing if the mechanism for change works or needs to be fixed. Also, are there currently groups or organizations that are making significant changes within the constraints of the current system and how are they doing it? The 313 boundry change is a good example of some group having the ear of the commisioner to the point they implemented a change disregarding the input from the regional biologist. Seems like that group is doing something better than most when it comes to effecting change.