Budget cutting in Washington State and New Mexico might close down the Wildlife Commissions in both States........Many feel that these Commissions are too heavily biased in favor of sportsmen and hunting and do not look at non consumption uses of the land and wildlife..............A complicated issue where "one size might not fit all" solution as it relates to certain State Commissions being much more science oriented in their wildlife planning than State Legislatures would be...................And in other States like California, Cougar management has been set by a State referendum(and interesting enough, very few negative human/cougar encounters even though you cannot hunt Cougars in California)............Some of my good biologist and naturalist friends like Helen Mcginnis, John Laundre, Jay Tischendorf and George Wuerthner weigh in on this critical issue..............As George states: "I think the way to proceed is to influence who is appointed to these commissions. In most states the commissions are almost entirely made up of ranchers, hunters, etc. and it would be worth trying to demand or even get a state initiative passed that demanded a more balanced commission--with at least some bird watchers and perhaps even one person who was opposed to hunting on each commission for balance"

Western wildlife commissions on the chopping block

 by Jodi Peterson

In Washington and New Mexico, state wildlife commissions could become a thing of the past. As part of their budget-trimming measures, both states' legislatures are considering bills that would do away with the commissions' power to set regulations and policy for managing fish and wildlife.

In theory, wildlife commissions, found in every Western state, allow citizens a voice in game and wildlife management decisions and help to insulate policy from partisan influence. "They were historically set up to put a damper on political swings between exploitation and conservation," says Bernard Shanks, past director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

With public input, the governor-appointed commissioners decide on hunting seasons and bag limits, and set regulations and policies for nongame wildlife. Many also have hiring and firing authority over the director of the state's wildlife division. In practice, though, critics say that commission seats sometimes go to campaign contributors. And commissions tend to emulate the political tone of the departments they oversee, often favoring fishing, hunting and agricultural interests over conservation and  "nonconsumptive" wildlife uses, such as photography.

Earlier this month, the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners passed controversial regulations for the state's first-ever black bear hunt, over the protests of conservationists who charge that the hunt lacks any scientific basis. The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission just decided to fund a study of state lands suitable for relocating bison from Yellowstone. Ranchers were furious, and the proposal divided both hunters and conservationists.

The bill introduced in Washington's Senate would remove rule-making authority from its fish and wildlife commission, restricting it to an advisory role. The bill also calls for a new Department of Conservation and Recreation that would include the state's Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Recreation and Conservation Office and the Department of Natural Resources' law enforcement unit.

 "The commission form of government can work, but it's an expensive way to run government," says John Mankowski, Gov. Christine Gregoire's natural resource policy adviser. "It takes a lot of time and money to hold meetings all around the state and get input. The commission also makes fine-scale decisions about management that should be at the discretion of the director (of Fish and Wildlife)."

In New Mexico, a House bill would entirely eliminate the game commission, which has lost the trust of many state residents recently for sharply increasing black bear and cougar quotas. Policy decisions would be made by the Game and Fish Department instead, which would become part of the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department. "If we're going to hire professional biologists and fisheries people, let's let them do their job," says State Rep. Jimmie Hall, R-District 28, the bill's sponsor, "instead of having an overly politicized commission make those decisions."

It remains to be seen whether these two bills will move forward. In New Mexico, two nearly identical bills were recently tabled, but Hall's bill still awaits a hearing. The Washington bill has the governor's support and eight sponsors. If the legislation does pass, many wildlife management professionals and conservationists, and even some hunters, fear the change will prove harmful. "We're really concerned about the loss of a venue where sportsmen can address their concerns and meet with decision makers," says Joel Gay, communications director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. "We've had our disagreements with the Game Commission, but the overall process is sound."

Still, most agree that reform is needed. "Like any aspect of governance," says Chris Smith, former deputy director of Montana's Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department, "wildlife commissions need to evolve with the times." In appointing commissioners, he says, governors must recognize that public interests in fish and wildlife management and conservation today are much broader than they were 30 years ago. And commissioners need to understand that they manage wildlife as a public resource and need to serve the interests of all their constituents.

If a state's residents don't feel they're adequately represented on their wildlife commission, what is the alternative? asks Martin Nie, associate professor of natural resource policy at the University of Montana. "You'll see more (management) decisions being made by ballot. And that's probably not a good thing," because the ballot process is far from ideal for making sound decisions on complex natural resource issues. A ballot initiative "leaves no room for collaborative problem-solving," adds Smith. "It's just bare-knuckles power politics."

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Helen McGinnis [mailto:HelenMcGinnis@frontiernet.net]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 7:45 AM
To: George Wuerthner
Cc: Meril, Rick
Subject: Re: Improve predator management by eliminating the state wildlife commissions?

Thanks, George.  I'm going to pass your message on to other members of Cougar Rewilding.  We are looking for that magic potion that would lead to a balanced approach to wildlife management--one that recognizes the importance of large carnivores such as cougars.

Here's some more information that Jay Tischendorf, who attended the Mountain Lion Workshop in Montana, provided me:

The talk by an employee of the Nevada State wildlife agency was remarkable.  People almost gasped with surprise when he said outright that agency staff had had no say in setting seasons and quotas for bears.  A movement originating in the Lake Tahoe region and spearheaded by the local Sierra Club group is underway to shut down the state wildlife commission.  Similar movements are afoot in other western states

Story I got at the mtn lion mtg was this:  For yrs Tahoe area has had a workable, non-terminal plan to deal with problem  bears.   All of a sudden the commission decides there needs to be a hunt in the area to really deal with the bears.  But many Tahoe-ans don't want hunting--partly due to their concern for the bears but also because of human safety---hunters with guns and 10s of thousands of tourists don't match up very well.

All of which is why there is movement afoot, aided by Sierra Club, to call for disbanding of the the commission once and for all.  

It is quite possible that even the state bios did not have say in this commission-driven idea.  Hard as it is to believe, the state biologists do not have say in mtn lion hunting seasons or quotas there.

John Laundre says:  My guess is that if wildlife biologists were allowed to make decisions based on science rather than pressure from above, these current decisions to reduce carnivore numbers would not have been made.  But it is just a guess and a hope that deep down, people working for these agencies are objective scientists, some, such as Eric Romgier (sp?) in NM, who is a sheep lover, would still say kill them all!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----

From: George Wuerthner

To: Helen McGinnis

Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:29 AM

Subject: Re: Improve predator management by eliminating the state wildlife commissions?

Helen

That is a tough question. When you look at the legislatures in places like Idaho and Montana, they are far worse than the Wildlife Commission. In Montana, in particular, there are at least three good commissioners (though they all pro hunting of course). This last session, the legislature tried to pass laws banning wild bison in the state, banning the state from acquiring any more wildlife management lands, etc. All things that the commission approved. So in the case of Montana, the commission is way better than the legislature. In Idaho, the legislature is demanding that the agency kill more wolves.

I would say in general the agency biologists are much better than the legislatures and/or commissions. But you could never get them independent. That's the problem.

I think the way to proceed is to influence who is appointed to these commissions. In most states the commissions are almost entirely made up of ranchers, hunters, etc. and it would be worth trying to demand or even get a state initiative passed that demanded a more balanced commission--with at least some bird watchers and perhaps even one person who was opposed to hunting on each commission for balance. This probably wouldn't pass in say Idaho or Montana, but states like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Minnesota and other more liberal states, this might work. Geo.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Helen McGinnis <HelenMcGinnis@frontiernet.net> wrote:

Hello George,

Do you know more about this?  Do you think it would be advisable to do away with state wildlife commissions?

Helen McGinnis

Cougar Rewilding Foundation

http://www.cougarrewilding.org/