Re: wildlife management

["Sue Hovey" <suehovey@moscow.com>]

Well if he wants to make it a constitutional change he'll have to get a 2/3
majority vote in the legislature, then a majority of voters when it goes on
the ballot.  One of your statements--majorities can be just as oppressive
as any other kind of government is true.  Certainly a number of our Idaho
laws, passed by legislative majorities, oppress fundamental rights.  The
most current examples I can recall are the ones which makes it a felony to
protest logging operations or bad-mouth veggies.  What is so special about
wildlife management that would endow it with special status not given to
initiatives relating to taxes, or for that matter, child abuse?    There is
much wrong with an effort such as Clower's and the issue of majority rule
is possibly the least of the problems. 

----------
> From: Erikus4@aol.com
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: Re: wildlife management
> Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 3:57 PM
> 
> >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