It comes as no surprise that politics and the ballot box are used to make wildlife decisions and those making the votes are seldom qualified to understand that science related to the wildlife management challenges. That can be said of legislators passing bills or citizens voting on ballot initiatives.
The link below is about as blatant as any politcal hacking as I have seen in a while.
http://www.omaha.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140217/OUTDOORS/140218910#.UwNyZFin1JE.facebook
Nebraska's wildlife division was given authority to implement a limited mountain lion season. They had the first season last year.
Now, politicians are holding the legislative funding for the agency as hostage to force others to cave in and eliminate the mountain lion season. Simplest terms, no additional Parks funding if you want to use hunting as a mountain lion management tool.
If these news reports are accurate, it seems one side is very open about the fact that they are going to stop the lion season for personal reasons; a dislike of hunting. And the other side is very open about the fact that they are willing to allow that to happen in the name of "political compromise."
What is being compromised is not budgets, or politics, rather the principle of hunting as one of the most effective management tools for how we manage species. And the principle that we leave the wildlife management policy to people who know what they are doing.
It comes across as an attack against hunting based on personal biases against hunting, not anything to do with willdlife management. Not that hunting as a management tool hasn't been compromised before by politicians, just seems rather blatantly stated in this instance and in a state where I never expected such to occur.
Guess I always thought of Nebraska as some great common sense people. I spent a lot of time there in years past and respected how pragmatic and friendly they are. Is the political tide of Colorado's Front Range now extending to metro-Nebraska?
The link below is about as blatant as any politcal hacking as I have seen in a while.
http://www.omaha.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140217/OUTDOORS/140218910#.UwNyZFin1JE.facebook
Nebraska's wildlife division was given authority to implement a limited mountain lion season. They had the first season last year.
Now, politicians are holding the legislative funding for the agency as hostage to force others to cave in and eliminate the mountain lion season. Simplest terms, no additional Parks funding if you want to use hunting as a mountain lion management tool.
If these news reports are accurate, it seems one side is very open about the fact that they are going to stop the lion season for personal reasons; a dislike of hunting. And the other side is very open about the fact that they are willing to allow that to happen in the name of "political compromise."
What is being compromised is not budgets, or politics, rather the principle of hunting as one of the most effective management tools for how we manage species. And the principle that we leave the wildlife management policy to people who know what they are doing.
It comes across as an attack against hunting based on personal biases against hunting, not anything to do with willdlife management. Not that hunting as a management tool hasn't been compromised before by politicians, just seems rather blatantly stated in this instance and in a state where I never expected such to occur.
Guess I always thought of Nebraska as some great common sense people. I spent a lot of time there in years past and respected how pragmatic and friendly they are. Is the political tide of Colorado's Front Range now extending to metro-Nebraska?