Interesting thoughts on Maine hntg & fish'g laws proposal

[Doc]

I ran across an article that relates to public intervention in hunting and fishing laws. This was in The Canandaigua Daily Messenger in an article written by their outdoor news editor.

 

It seems that the animal rights wackos have for attempted to end certain commonly used bear hunting practices in Maine by bringing to the ballot proposals to do so for 3 consecutive years and have been bragging about going for a 4th next year. So far they have been turned back at each attempt, but they have even more money coming from out-of-state anti-hunting groups.

 

So state legislators from both sides of the aisle have come up with a joint proposal to amend their state constitution that would bar the public from changing any laws applicable to either hunting or fishing. Those lawmakers want all fish and wildlife management legislation to be determined only by scientific principles and to be completely shielded from emotional campaigns funded by out-of-state special interest groups.

 

I'm sorry, but there are a whole lot of details left out of the article.

 

On the surface, It all sounds like a real good idea, especially since it looks like a measure to protect hunters and fishermen from the campaigns of the animal rights crowd. We all have heard of the weird legal things that these people have been able to push into local state laws in other states. Legal game management harassment has been put in place with some crazy anti-hunting policies in California and Oregon and have threatened with close defeats in many other states. 

 

But then it gives impenetrable protection to the state game managers, even when they have policies that we might not agree with. So the issue isn't quite as much of a no-brainer as it might appear. Perhaps it can also be used to silence hunters and fishermen who have their own vested interests.

So what do you think about that kind of amendment proposal that the Maine legislators are putting forth? Do you think that is something that NYS ought to be thinking about? How does that kind of amendment strike all of you?

 

 

[jrm]

You are right on both counts. It makes sense to keep the decisions based on scientific principles... but then the change would give state game managers unchecked power.

The answer is in the system itself. This is exactly the problem that our representative system of government is meant to solve. "Majority Rules" is not how things are done. Elected representatives are supposed to reject the emotional pleas and make the "smart" decisions based on facts.

Looks like the proposal will allow legislators to shirk their responsibilities by passing the buck. They are absolved of responsibility and can court the votes of hunters and non-hunters alike.

Regardless of how good or well-intentioned state game managers may be, they are appointed, not elected officials and should not be writing or passing laws. Their job should be to give the legislators the information necessary to make a decision.

[philoshop]

State governments should not be allowing non-residents to have a say in their law-making. Then again the worst offender of this principle is the federal government. Rolling over and assuming the position has become the norm for a lot of states in this regard.

 

People have the right to speak their minds, all across the country. The state lawmakers have the right to decide who they will listen to. Ceding absolute control to a particular bureaucratic branch within a state government is not an adequate response to the issue. It's a compromise. Rolling halfway over in an attempt to keep as many people happy as possible, and pretty much ensuring that no one is actually happy. Most of our states are like that.

[Mr VJP]

This is exactly the type of problem predicted when states started talking about allowing referendums on the ballot.  Anything can be on the ballot with enough signatures on a petition.

 

That's how Washington state got it's recent horrible gun transfer law on the books.

 

Whenever something is on the ballot for a vote, you allow majority opinion to decide what the law will be.

 

But sometimes when the special interests don't like the outcome of the vote, like when a state bans same sex marriage, they will take it to court, after court, after court, until it is invalidated.  That costs the state's taxpayers millions.

 

The state Wildlife agency should be the only group that can propose game laws, but the state legislators must vote it into law, based on the opinions of the residents of the state.  

 

Out of state residents have no influence over it without referendums on the ballot.

 

 

[mike rossi]

As MR JVP said, this is about ballot referendums. About 20 states use this system, fortunately, NY is not one of them. 

 

I dont know if this will fly without just reversing their whole referendum law, I dont see how you can prevent someone or some organization from influencing voters in your state.

 

In Michigan, a referendum ballot was used to repeal their dove season only 2 years after it was reinstated.  Some hunters in Michigan asked, well what would happen if whitetail deer hunting went to referendum? It only takes petition signatures to get a referendum put on the ballot in the general election. It is therefore feasible for whitetail deer hunting to be up for referendum vote in any of  the twenty-some referendum states. On the dove issue in Michigan, antis got about 60 % of the vote; in the last Maine bear referendum, the state was split almost 50-50, there was NOT a big landslide victory as advertised, that is why the HSUS is planning to  try a third time. California also had many hunting-related referendums. 

 

Does anyone think whitetail deer hunting will ever be put to a referendum vote anywhere in the USA? Why or why not? 

[MACHINIST]

Ive hunted the last 3 years in Maine,primarily for bear and I can tell you that the outside bunnyhuggers have a major influence of money and power on the state.The last few times the bear baiting/running of hounds bill has come up it has been to close to call.The guides and hunting industry of Maine would suffer a massive blow if that weren't there for them to make a living,damn near catastrophic if you ask me.On that note I think it would be a good thing this change would help,but I know in the grand sceam of this it wouldn't matter.Funds would pour in to the right officials that swayed their votes the way of the contributor and then the small hunter/guide would loose their voice all together.The singer "Keesha" supposedly donated 25 million dollars to the fund to stop bear hunting with bait and hounds last year(don't know this to be 100% true,just what I was told).That money would just go into a crooked politicians hands as a campaign donation.

[CFHunter]

As MR JVP said, this is about ballot referendums. About 20 states use this system, fortunately, NY is not one of them. 

 

I dont know if this will fly without just reversing their whole referendum law, I dont see how you can prevent someone or some organization from influencing voters in your state.

 

In Michigan, a referendum ballot was used to repeal their dove season only 2 years after it was reinstated.  Some hunters in Michigan asked, well what would happen if whitetail deer hunting went to referendum? It only takes petition signatures to get a referendum put on the ballot in the general election. It is therefore feasible for whitetail deer hunting to be up for referendum vote in any of  the twenty-some referendum states. On the dove issue in Michigan, antis got about 60 % of the vote; in the last Maine bear referendum, the state was split almost 50-50, there was NOT a big landslide victory as advertised, that is why the HSUS is planning to  try a third time. California also had many hunting-related referendums. 

 

Does anyone think whitetail deer hunting will ever be put to a referendum vote anywhere in the USA? Why or why not? 

 

And last year, Michigan passed basically the same law that Maine is looking to do. Good thing too, as just after the new law was passed the HSUS pushed a voting resolution to ban wolf hunting. It was all for not, as the new law states the hunting and fishing regulations must be set based on science and done so by the DNR. Something needs to be done to stop these national groups from coming in taking away our hunting and fishing.

[steve863]

 

 

Does anyone think whitetail deer hunting will ever be put to a referendum vote anywhere in the USA? Why or why not? 

 

 

In my opinion states would do their damndest to get a referendum to ban deer hunting defeated.  It's not the same issue as hunting bear over bait or dove hunting.  The monetary significance of having bear hunted over bait or dove hunting is chump change to a state in the scheme of things.  Deer hunting on the other hand brings in a good amount of revenue.  I don't think there is a state out there that would want to lose it just because some animal rights fanatics are making a stink.  If it were so easy to get laws overturned and changed with referendums then why doesn't someone put one up to lower or eliminate state taxes?  The states would NEVER allow a referendum like that to see the light of day in the ballot box no matter what people think or want, that's for damned sure.  I think the same would be true for a deer hunting referendum.  If a referendum would kill a good revenue stream for the state, then you will never see it in the ballot boxes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Four Season Whitetail's]

In my opinion states would do their damndest to get a referendum to ban deer hunting defeated.  It's not the same issue as hunting bear over bait or dove hunting.  The monetary significance of having bear hunted over bait or dove hunting is chump change to a state in the scheme of things.  Deer hunting on the other hand brings in a good amount of revenue.  I don't think there is a state out there that would want to lose it just because some animal rights fanatics are making a stink.  If it were so easy to get laws overturned and changed with referendums then why doesn't someone put one up to lower or eliminate state taxes?  The states would NEVER allow a referendum like that to see the light of day in the ballot box no matter what people think or want, that's for damned sure.  I think the same would be true for a deer hunting referendum.  If a referendum would kill a good revenue stream for the state, then you will never see it in the ballot boxes.

So true and thats why most states deer herds,Including Ny are in shambles. Its the almighty tag dollars at the end of the day!

[G-Man]

A simple amendment to state constitution would solve this issue, giving the right to hunt to the people

..

[Mr VJP]

Actually, ballot measures are often in conflict with the interests of the state, but they have to be put on the ballot by law if the petition is successful and the cause is legal.

 

A measure calling for the elimination of taxes may not be legal, but one calling for the elimination of hunting would be.

 

If the measure isn't something the state wants to see, huge amounts of taxpayer money would be spent by the state to defeat the measure.  That's another problem with referendums.

 

[Mr VJP]

A simple amendment to state constitution would solve this issue, giving the right to hunt to the people

..

 

You would think so, but it still allows opportunity to infringe on the types of hunting that will be allowed.  Bow hunting, bear hunting, dove hunting, Sunday hunting, etc., could all still be attacked on the ballot.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Mr VJP

[Curmudgeon]

What a can or worms. Basing wildlife management on referendum is a nightmare. Basing it on science could be also. Does the science support agriculture over wildlife habitat, game over non-game? How about lead-free ammunition? Science would ban lead ammunition. Be careful what you wish for.

 

An amendment to provide a "right to hunt" could never allow all practices. The ME bear hunting practices would not be legal in NYS. If bears were out of control, they would probably call in APHIS instead of dealing with the public resistance to politically unpalatable measures.

[Doc]

In my opinion states would do their damndest to get a referendum to ban deer hunting defeated.  It's not the same issue as hunting bear over bait or dove hunting.  The monetary significance of having bear hunted over bait or dove hunting is chump change to a state in the scheme of things.  Deer hunting on the other hand brings in a good amount of revenue.  I don't think there is a state out there that would want to lose it just because some animal rights fanatics are making a stink.  If it were so easy to get laws overturned and changed with referendums then why doesn't someone put one up to lower or eliminate state taxes?  The states would NEVER allow a referendum like that to see the light of day in the ballot box no matter what people think or want, that's for damned sure.  I think the same would be true for a deer hunting referendum.  If a referendum would kill a good revenue stream for the state, then you will never see it in the ballot boxes.

You know, if you had asked me about the possibility of a lot of laws ever seeing the light of day (including our very own SAFE ACT), I would have had a similar attitude to yours. But now we see that there is no limit to the lunacy of law-making. Burying our heads in the sand is not an option, so don't ever say never. Everything is measured in votes (not $), so as long as you are perceived to be in the minority, anything is possible.

[Doc]

What a can or worms. Basing wildlife management on referendum is a nightmare. Basing it on science could be also. Does the science support agriculture over wildlife habitat, game over non-game? How about lead-free ammunition? Science would ban lead ammunition. Be careful what you wish for.

 

An amendment to provide a "right to hunt" could never allow all practices. The ME bear hunting practices would not be legal in NYS. If bears were out of control, they would probably call in APHIS instead of dealing with the public resistance to politically unpalatable measures.

And there is the other side of the coin. Whose science prevails?

[Curmudgeon]

Doc is right, in referendum states votes not dollars make the rules. Many people who do not like hunting know that deer hunting is a necessity. However, some of the who are most idealistic might prefer there were wolves and mountain lions in our agricultural and suburban areas to keep the population under control. Wouldn't that be welcome.

[steve863]

You know, if you had asked me about the possibility of a lot of laws ever seeing the light of day (including our very own SAFE ACT), I would have had a similar attitude to yours. But now we see that there is no limit to the lunacy of law-making. Burying our heads in the sand is not an option, so don't ever say never. Everything is measured in votes (not $), so as long as you are perceived to be in the minority, anything is possible.

 

 

I don't think the deer hunting issue is in the same boat as the gun issue.  Hunters ARE in the minority compared to non-hunters, but we are a minority that produces a good amount of revenue for the state.  Do the anti-hunting groups give the state as much?  No way.  With guns neither side had the upper hand in producing revenue directly for the state as deer hunting does.  Maybe the anti-gun side did a better job in padding the politicians pockets, but that's about it.

 

 

 

[mike rossi]

Actually, ballot measures are often in conflict with the interests of the state, but they have to be put on the ballot by law if the petition is successful and the cause is legal.

 

A measure calling for the elimination of taxes may not be legal, but one calling for the elimination of hunting would be.

 

If the measure isn't something the state wants to see, huge amounts of taxpayer money would be spent by the state to defeat the measure.  That's another problem with referendums.

 

That makes sense; but according to what I am understanding from Steve's post here, I think he is saying  that a state will only put out so much for other game, but is willing to outspend the HSUS for whitetail. Do you buy that? Or does Steve mean something else? 

[mike rossi]

 

 The ME bear hunting practices would not be legal in NYS. If bears were out of control, they would probably call in APHIS instead of dealing with the public resistance to politically unpalatable measures.

 

Did you see the last bear plan? The DEC is indeed entertaining hounds, foot snares, and bait for bear.

 

But I agree with what you say regarding , a "right to hunt." That would not guarantee "cart'e blanch" any form of hunting, nor should it.  

[mike rossi]

You would think so, but it still allows opportunity to infringe on the types of hunting that will be allowed.  Bow hunting, bear hunting, dove hunting, Sunday hunting, etc., could all still be attacked on the ballot.

 

So could buck hunting. If one argues people are accepting of deer hunting for ecological reasons, consider that shooting bucks of any age class does not fit into the concept. Population control or reduction is achieved by doe harvest....

[Curmudgeon]

Did you see the last bear plan? The DEC is indeed entertaining hounds, foot snares, and bait for bear.

 

But I agree with what you say regarding , a "right to hunt." That would not guarantee "cart'e blanch" any form of hunting, nor should it.  

 

It has been a while since I read the bear plan. Hounds for bear were stopped after a lawsuit. So, it should require an act of the legislature to change that. Snares, bait, hounds will all cause outrage at some level.

 

You cannot remove politics from these decisions. The amount of money (deer) hunting puts into the economy is only one of many factors. The opposition's money, the public's ethical/moral perceptions, the number of voters pulling levers, all these matter more to a urban politician than deer hunting dollars.

 

And, it isn't about "whose science", it is about whose goals and priorities are served by politicians. Politicians run governments, and therefore wildlife programs.

 

[Doc]

I don't think the deer hunting issue is in the same boat as the gun issue.  Hunters ARE in the minority compared to non-hunters, but we are a minority that produces a good amount of revenue for the state.  Do the anti-hunting groups give the state as much?  No way.  With guns neither side had the upper hand in producing revenue directly for the state as deer hunting does.  Maybe the anti-gun side did a better job in padding the politicians pockets, but that's about it.

Well, not to get too far off topic, but I have seen situations where the government has forsaken the dollar revenue for political principle or votes. The dismantling of the cigarette industry comes to mind immediately. The cash revenue that has been lost is staggering. It is entirely possible that the Safe Act is responsible for losing jillions of dollars in wages and corporate taxes as quite a few lucrative markets and manufacturers have been pushed out of the state. But that aspect didn't even slow them down. So, is the potential for anti-hunting referendums going to really bother them so much that they will mount a massive counter campaign? ....... probably not. History doesn't really support that assumption.

[Doc]

I knew this would be a dandy discussion, because I can see two sides to this one. We have seen the politics of wildlife management at work with the forcing of the AR issue in the initial first areas through political pressures and legislator initiatives. We have seen certain states outlaw specific prey from harvests strictly because of public pressures and sentiment pushed by the animal rights crowd. Wolves, bears, the list goes on and on. However, I have seen situations where hunters disagree with DEC policies (and sometimes with some merit), and such an anti-referendum law would leave hunters completely un-represented or with no voice at all. So perhaps it is useful in some isolated cases to have a legal or political recourse. There is more than one view of these things.

[mike rossi]

It has been a while since I read the bear plan. Hounds for bear were stopped after a lawsuit. So, it should require an act of the legislature to change that. Snares, bait, hounds will all cause outrage at some level.

 

You cannot remove politics from these decisions. The amount of money (deer) hunting puts into the economy is only one of many factors. The opposition's money, the public's ethical/moral perceptions, the number of voters pulling levers, all these matter more to a urban politician than deer hunting dollars.

 

And, it isn't about "whose science", it is about whose goals and priorities are served by politicians. Politicians run governments, and therefore wildlife programs.

 

 

First, please send me info about the hound injunction (lawsuit), I did not hear about that.

 

Second, opposition to the recent bear plan was nothing compared to the public outcry against the mute swan plan. Comments from antis was relatively light. The summary of public comments was online, it probably still is, although the DEC does not keep them up forever. 

 

I started to answer Doc about clarifying his context regarding "whose science"; but I decided not to go down this path again. If people want to bash science, then they need to pin down their premises to one context, not throw out wide generalizations comprised of several different meanings. 

 

You are correct - the DEC does NOT set regulations. The DEC informs the Legislature which is who sets the regulations. The Legislature may or may not heed the DEC's recommendations. Sometimes the legislature  gives the nod to public outcry and/or organizations instead of to the DEC recommendations. Politics are indeed part of conservation policy, when we say they shouldn't be, does not mean that they are not -  the current system certainly is set up to be politically-driven. 

Edited April 22, 2015 by mike rossi

[mike rossi]

That makes sense; but according to what I am understanding from Steve's post here, I think he is saying  that a state will only put out so much for other game, but is willing to outspend the HSUS for whitetail. Do you buy that? Or does Steve mean something else? 

 

I will answer my own question. I disagree with Steve's implication. Staff attorneys for the DEC incorporate fighting these legal maneuvers into their daily work, they are not working late and weekends and submitting over time pay nor are they outside attorneys billing the DEC. State Conservation Agencies are in court all the time, whether it is hunting issues or any of the myriad of environmental issues, lets be serious here...  Also, the HSUS probably has enough money to outspend the DEC Bureau of Wildlife, if they wanted to. Why don't they invest in banning squirrel hunting? 

 

The HSUS is a business, and to sustain their income, they need to sustain controversy. To sustain their lucrative business, they must kill hunting slowly. 

 

Never the less, in any organization or movement, there are individuals true to the cause. Those people want hunting ceased as soon as possible, but know it must be done incrementally.