vision2020
Re: wildlife management
>Clower wants to duplicate that proposition in Idaho. He wants to change
>the Idaho Constitution to read that any initiative dealing with wildlife
>must pass by a 2/3 majority.
Nothing wrong with that. And what about the fact that any such amendment will
only be passed by at least a majority - so it IS majority rule...
>This blatantly-undemocratic idea that the majority doesn't rule
Majorities can be just as oppressive as any other kind of government. Do you
know that Democracy is historically thought to be a corrputed form of
government?
Wildlife management based on the premise that "animals are cute" (popular
opinion) is ridiculous. The bear-baiting initiative was a joke. Do you
really want management of animals by public opinion? Do you know about the
increase in animals attacks in California after such public-opinion management
laws were passed?
>So we will have to pay for the management of our wildlife, but we will be
>denied effective say in that management.
And why shouldn't everyone pay for management? You aren't unrepresented - you
still elect the officials who put people on the boards. How about this -
currently sportsmen foot the bill for almost all management, so why should we
give you a voice in the first place? If taxation requires representation, why
shouldn't representation require taxation? Just a thought.
E. O'Daniel
Back to TOC