# Issue of the Week: Who should make wildlife policy decisions?



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

If you could find the original administrative procedures act concerning the makeup of the DNR, actually the Department of Conservation in those days, you would see that the legislature of the state was to be hands off when it came to fish and wildlife management. If I can find it again, I'll post it. Anyways, the idea behind that was to leave these issues to the people who understand these issues. Based on your above post, it appears to me that you are just fine with the "elites" running our programs, which is basically what is wrong with our country right now anyways. It is not in my nature to have those that have, tell me what I should or shouldn't do based on the financial influence. Sorry for the edit, but let me try to explain myself a little better. I was not born with a silver spoon, I went to college for 3 years but couldn't finish for a variety of reasons. Part of the reason was I was, and still do work anywhere from 45-60+ hours per week. When I have a chance to go, I just want to be able to go wherever I want to go and enjoy my leisure time. To have where I go dictated by those that have the financial power is just wrong IMHO.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

The best reason to support the Legislature being able to get involved is that it provides a check on the NRC and ballot proposals provide a check on both. The DNR and NRC should always be the primary actors but their power should not be absolute. Your idea of always reducing the range of decision makers just makes it easier for small groups to influence outcomes. You and your friends can throw out hot button words like *elitists* and *preservationists* but it is your own efforts to control the process that is allowing the special interests to succeed. 

I guess if we are going to to go to our biographies to prove our "street cred" I'll give you mine. I'm one of six kids, my parents immigrants from Mexico, I never graduated college and I work in a pretty blue collar field (hvac tech). I'm not clear at all how you equate elitism with my stand that more of the public and their representatives should be involved. I always thought the more people were involved the less elitist the process. Your stand of only involving those who fish and hunt seems much more elitist.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Well if you don't fish, why would you care if it's flies only or not, why would care about chumming? As for the wolf hunting issue, that's a completely different scenario. The bottom line is, if you leave decisions to those who have no knowledge, you are asking for failure. The NRC has no knowledge of the facts, other than what's fed to them, either by biologists or special interest groups. It seems to me these groups have only one thing on their agenda, and that's their own personal agenda. Our agenda is the opposite, this isn't about me being able to go the AuSable and fish with bait for instance, this is about creating opportunities for those that would like to. Believe or not, not everyone wants to fly fish, nor can either because they can't physically, or financially take your pick. If you don't think the legislature doesn't have sway with the NRC board, you just have to look at the now infamous "worm bill" from a few years ago for a good example.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

If you want another chance to see science vs. social, go to the upcoming public meetings on the chinook stocking reduction on Lake Michigan.


----------



## mrjimspeaks (Aug 23, 2009)

100 years ago the impact of the public in regards to conservation was much different...The whole idea that conservation is necessary was just starting to come into play at that time. We didn't have a highway system/everyone driving and most of the rivers/areas we're talking about were far more remote. They had nowhere near the same pressure and attention they have now. The weekend and vacation really weren't a thing yet for working class people then either. Sport fishing was something for the elites, and lo and behold they were the ones who held sway with the govt. 

A few years back I wrote a longish paper on the birth of flies only regulations on the AuSable, and the founding of Trout Unlimited. It was the start of gear restricted waters. In it I'm mainly refuting a guy who wrote a dissertation defending flies only waters, and waxing poetic about fly fisherman being stewards of the environment etc. He decided to ignore many studies that showed that angler pressure was less of a concern than the overall health of a fishery. If you want to look it up the title is "Flies Only: Early Sport Fishing on Michigans Ausable River." I can probably dig up my paper as well.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

A group of people, with no related qualifications, politically appointed and under the influence of special interest's

Yea, that sounds perfect !


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Mr. Jim, I've read that paper, quite good actually and I hope you don't mind, but I've cited it a few times in my arguments. One thing that I think could have been brought up in the paper, and maybe spelled out a little clearer was the Public Trust Doctrine. It is my guess, and my guess only, that the public trust doctrine was very in vogue at the time of the original grab by the likes of what is now Trout Unlimited. Wish we could make a way for our DNR/NRC see what the public trust really means, and says. I'm personally trying, but it's hard as they find more ways than you can imagine to Pooh Pooh the PTD.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

The person who should make all of the DNR decisions. After looking at a long list of candidates from the NRC and DNR it was a tough choice. There were many candidates that would not be qualified to take out the garbage. The remainder could not make a wise decision if their life depended upon it. To make things easy I voted for myself.


----------

