[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: legislators vs wildlife experts?
It's not that I don't agree that the "experts" should be in control of
any wildlife program...my only concern is "who watches the watchers"?
Back about 1980 here in this part of Kansas there was a big push to
re-establish the wild turkey in the state. It had been hunted to
extinction in the last century. Wildlife officials began restocking
efforts around many of our large federal reservoirs. Private citizens
also began restocking programs...include my grandpa,dad, and me. Our
efforts and the efforts of several others in our area had Wild Turkeys
well established before any stocked birds were released within 25 miles of
the area. I know this from direct observations of the flocks. Still the
wildlife people stubbornly refuse to credit private landowners with any
stocking successes...they say the "well meaning but misguided attempts
were failures". BULL.
So I guess I'm just a little leary of leaving it all up to the wildlife
people (don't forget I want to be one too) whose egos won't allow them to
acknowledge that the "uneducated" of the world just might be able to
accomplish some good now and then. Simply because one has an education
does not necessarily mean they know more about the local flora and fauna.
There are a lot of 'old timers' in these parts that could teach all us
students of biology (graduated or not) a lot about our environment. Plus,
no matter how well educated or trained, many people still follow there own
personal agenda once they have some "power". That is why I for one
applaud it when that authority is put under a checks and balances such as
some minor legislative action. Authority works best when it is limited.
On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Jay DeLong wrote:
> Hello Luke.
> > Our legislative body is OUR governing voice. Don't forget WE THE
> > PEOPLE... These legislatures oversee the wildlife and parks
> > people and
> > the latter can do nothing contrary to the established
> > laws...and if they
> > do, they answer to the legislature. I personally would rather have a
> > representative who will listen to my views instead of a
> > "wildlife espert"
> > who will do what he/she thinks is best come hell or high water.
> No offense intended I promise. You're a great guy and I respect you.
> But, I don't understand why you categorize people like this. If you
> have had problems with a biologist in Kansas, or talked to someone who
> had problems elsewhere, it isn't fair to say this about state or
> federal biologists everywhere. Also, politicians do not always have
> your best interests in mind. There's nothing that peeves me more than
> career politicians who turn more often than a weather vane. And the two
> are not enemies or on opposite ends of the opinion spectrum. State and
> federal biologists were once college biology students like you are right
> Legislators want to trust their state's natural resource agency staff to
> make the technical decisions, and I think we should want them to, also.
> The legislature funds the agency. The agency develops programs, and
> hires employees. The employees use their knowledge, background, etc,
> and develop management plans and carry them out. At each step the
> politicians are further removed from the technical aspects of the work
> being performed by the agency. Sure, some agency biologists or
> administrators can be stubborn and unresponsive, but they are not evil
> people simply because they don't agree with you.
> It may take time, but I think we all need to establish a relationship
> with our state and federal natural resource agencies if we want to
> influence them. Their biologists are educated people, and you'll need
> to interact with them in a professional and intelligent manner. An
> anti-agency attitude isn't going to make your tasks easier to
> accomplish. I am not a state or federal biologist, by the way.