Re: wildlife management

[gregb@corecom.net (Greg Brown)]

At 06:57 PM 12/6/98 EST, Erikus4@aol.com wrote:
>>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...

    There is *everything* wrong with this.  Why single out wildlife
management?   What is so special about wildlife management
that the people need to be protected from themselves? 
Remember...this is a *constitutional* change...a weakening of 
the direct democracy process to appease special interests.  I could
easily argue that there are far more complex areas of law (e.g.,
regulatory control of pollution) that should be "off-limits"
to the "people" because the people lack the "understanding"
to grasp the issues involved.  

     The initiative process is the 4th check and balance on 
government .  What is codified into law through the initiative 
process can be reversed later by the people or by the 
legislature itself.  The proposal is nothing more than 
a SLAPP--strategic *law* against political participation 
akin to a poll tax.  It discourages people from becoming 
involved in the affairs of government.  Government may not 
always be fair, but we have at least paid lip service to equal 
access through the ballot box.  The proposal is a direct form 
of discrimination--it says that some votes count more than
others.


>>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?
 
    Great.  Then let's move to a system of government based on a few 
"experts."  Such a system, in its most benign form, is called "oligarchy"...in
its more virulent form, is called "fascism."  Churchill once said that
democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the 
others.  Our system of government may be ugly and untidy...but
the alternative is much worse.

>Wildlife management based on the premise that "animals are cute" (popular
>opinion) is ridiculous.  The bear-baiting initiative was a joke.  

    Why is that?  I'm willing to listen to any sort of defense you
can muster in defense of the practice.   To refresh your memory,
the vote in 1996 was 60-40%--hardly the margin of victory that
invites derision.  One should also keep in mind that the pro-baiting,
pro-hounding, and pro-bear cub killing side outspent the initiative
proponents by a 3 to 1 margin.   Do you fear a different 
outcome in the future?

 As the individual who started the initiative in Idaho in 1996, my thoughts 
have changed somewhat since then.  The 1996 initiative included 3 
bear hunting reforms...baiting, hunting bears with dogs, and a spring bear 
hunt.  I would still work very hard to eliminate hunting with hounds
and the spring bear hunt because they are inherently cruel.  The spring
hunt is especially outrageous.

Baiting, however, shows slob hunting at its "finest" and epitomizes 
why hunting continues to decline in this country (down to 5% of the U.S. 
population).  Why should I work to reform a practice that reveals what 
some hunters will do in the name of "sport"?  These hunters are their own 
worst enemies.  But then I realize that, nonetheless, baiting has
to go because it leads to the killing of grizzly bears (funny how
hunters can't seem to be able to tell the difference between a black
bear and a brown bear).


>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?

   Rhetoric is cheap.  Produce the numbers and the sources so we can
discuss them.

>>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?  

    Your logic implies, "we pay for it, we should say what will done with it."
Using your logic, people that do not pay taxes because they do not 
earn enough income should not be allowed to vote, right?

     Wildlife is to be managed as a public trust.  This means the views of
95% of 
the people that do not hunt must be represented in the decision process.  
The management funding mechanism is largely irrelevant.  If you feel
the funding mechanism is inequitable, change it.  But the fundamental
presumption that wildlife is to be managed as a public trust stands.

    I'll await the evidence that clearly shows the present initiative
process in Idaho is flawed...
----------
Greg Brown (gregb@corecom.net)
Asst. Professor, Environmental Science Dept.
Alaska Pacific University
Home: (907) 346-2777
Work: (907) 564-8267
Fax: (907) 562-4276