Politics in Conservation (article, comments encouraged)

[mike rossi]

March 13, 2013

How can it be credible that DEC is voluntarily handing out its own money and deliberately not performing its mandates, carrying out slated projects, or implementing existing conservation plans?  After all, these are the DEC’s own ideas and working capital.

 

The blame is sometimes put on “the state” and “politicians”.  Although it is not hard to believe that tens of millions of dollars in the accounts comprising the conservation fund will perk up lawmakers; it is not believable that regulation proposals for fishing & hunting are dreamed up by the legislature or governor. These proposals are driven by either sportsmen or anti-hunters. Other times they are driven by non-shooting conservationists.

 

However, the chain is longer than the special interest drivers. It is extended by advisory boards such as the open lands advisory board; conservation advisory board; and the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. Additionally, the NY State Conservation Council is also empowered by state law to have a voice larger than individuals or small groups, unless those agree with the NYSCC, off course.

 

The chain is longer and still does not end there.  A proposal, in addition to passing both houses of the legislature and being signed by the governor; can be opened for public comment one or more times during the rule-making process. The public comment period is several weeks or months long and is advertised in newspapers, the DEC website, or in what is known as the state register or federal register for federal regulations. This comment period is used as a tool by special interests groups, when it is to their advantage; they blast announcements about it to their members and to the magazines (actually directly to the Outdoor Writers Association). When it does not work to their advantage, they keep it quiet. However, you are not their puppet, unless you choose to be. As an individual you can monitor the websites of the DEC, assembly, senate, and congress, and the state or federal registers, to keep apprised of public comment periods.

 

This article is leading up to the politicization of conservation. Conservation began in the 1930s, but in 1957 NY passed the Fish and Wildlife Management Act which authorized the FWMB to make recommendations on management plans and work on private land cooperative agreements for hunting and fishing. Members of each regional board are politically appointed and/or from designated groups, such as agriculture, etc. During May, 2011, a bill passed the NY State Senate which extended the term limits of board members. The stated justification of this law was that by the time board members learned the ropes and became experienced, it was time for them to resign.

 

Backtracking to 1982, NY passed another law which authorized the conservation advisory board which is self-explanatory. In 1992 still another law was passed which restructured the CFAB. This law put a handful of politicians and DEC staff on the board as “ex office” members. The stated reason for this law was to assist the regular board members in making decisions on time.

 

A creed among sportsman is to remain united. That creed has helped keep anti-hunters and anti-firearm groups at bay. However, it also has created institutionalized thinking among sportsmen. This mentality has discouraged people from doing their own thinking and encouraged adopting whatever is said or proposed by large organizations that enjoy carte blanche access to the sporting media through the Outdoor Writers Association.

 

One way the case is delivered by the sporting leadership is by criticizing “special interest legislation”. However, they only consider a bill S.I.L. when it is not one of their proposals. And as mentioned earlier, some proposals are announced widely when it helps, but others slide through the entire legislative process with stealth when advantageous.

 

Conservation and sporting policy should be ecology-based, not politically- based. Indoctrination drives politics, not conservation. Sportsmen love to tout science-based decisions and label themselves conservationists after making a statement about the difference between a preservationist and a conservationist.  However, like industry, it is only science when it is consistent with their agenda.

Everybody seems to agree that conservation has become politicized. The disagreement lies in who is to blame for driving politics. If the sporting leadership is “pushing back” with recommendations during a hearing and with new legislation, why isn’t that playing politics? Despite the dysfunction of that approach, chatter within the sporting community indicates some degree of endorsement of this retaliation.

 

Citizen participation is useful to help natural resource managers (the DEC) balance the social and biological aspects of conservation. It seems that has evolved into politically facilitated groups insistent on telling the DEC what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and what not to do. When the DEC is proposing something they like or adopting one of their own proposals, it is one story. In those scenarios these groups endorse the DEC’s ideas, science, and statistics. When the DEC has other priorities or conclusions, it is a different story and politics enter. Apparently, politics entered in 2013 with a proposal to lower sporting license revenue, unless you believe that is just what the DEC wanted…

Edited March 13, 2013 by mike rossi