Re: wildlife management

[curley@CYPHER.TURBONET.COM]

E:

It is more than mildly ingenuous to suggest that because a citizenry 
elects officials who perform or supervise a multitude of functions, 
that citizenry can un-elect an official who displeases them with 
regard to one of those functions.  To suggest that such elections 
compensate for  losing (or diminishing) one more method of direct 
access to or control of some aspect of our public policies fails to 
persuade me even a little.

Your ad hominem statements about non-hunters misses the point I 
understood Bill London to be making, which was not that public 
funding was inappropriate (that's a separate debate), but that IF 
public funding, THEN public (by majority) control.  

Admittedly, the "unwashed public" can be duped, cajoled, advertised, 
mesmerized, or otherwise led into the "darkness" on occasion--whether 
on the issue of the "cuteness" of animals or the propriety of 
building huge stadiums for "retaining" sports teams.  But some of us 
would rather retain the rights of direct intervention (however seldom 
they are exercised) unfettered by the necessity of a super-majority 
vote rather than effectively turn over the running of our cities, 
counties, and states to the "professionals."

Here's a thought for you:  since lawyers are professionals in "the 
law," maybe you would advocate that a panel of lawyers (appointed by 
those same elected officials you say we can refuse to re-elect) make 
all the laws subject to the citizenry's mandate only if 2/3 (or 
more?) of them disagree?

You might also enlighten us a bit further on the point of your 
statement that majorities can be just as oppressive as any other kind 
of govt and that democracy was historically considered corrupt.  This 
would be your argument in favor of --what?  A police state.  An 
oligarchy.  A government of professional elitists?  I agree the 
"majority" is far from perfect, but it/they/we IS one of the checks 
and balances of our system, and I'm pretty protective against 
reduction of those rights.  Our system can certainly use some 
overhaul to keep the side with the most money from winning on every 
issue and candidate, but the goal should continue to be to have an 
informed electorate.  An electorate that actually cares and pays 
attention would also be nice, since so few of us vote.  It's really 
hard to imagine enough people being energized on wildlife issues to 
actually conduct "management of animals by public opinion."

One other bit of sophistry worthy of comment is the 
statement that if a majority passes an amendment that we, therefore, 
still have majority rule.  So, the logical extension of that is that 
if a majority decides in favor of having a king, a dictator, or 
Ronald Reagan, then anything that person does in an official capacity 
is the will of the majority.  Hmmm.  We may be getting what we 
deserve, but I hardly think every act will reflect the majority 
wishes.  

If the govt wants to tax me to provide for wildlife management (in 
addition to charging the "users"), fine.  But I'll opt to retain the 
"majority rule" just the same.

> From:          Erikus4@aol.com
> Date:          Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:57:18 EST
> To:            vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject:       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.  
 
you said:   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
> 
you said:   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.
> 
you said: 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
> 
> 
Mike Curley
reply to: curley@turbonet.com
208-882-3536