Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Deer Hunting' started by pathfork man, Nov 18, 2010.
All this would do is increase poaching.
Are you suggesting that Doc Angel is intentionally going out of his way to decimate Ky's deer herd and screw hunters in Zone 3 & 4 counties, because he's pissed that term limits were imposed on commissioners?
If that's really what you think, one would assume you're jumping for joy that his arse is headed for the door???
Such a great idea it would probably turn a lot of ethical hunters into poachers.
How in the world is this thread still going????
What I am suggesting is that a lame duck comissioner may try to push through personal agendas instead of agendas based on sound biological principals.
How this will differ from instutionalized comissioners doing what they feel they deserve to do based on their tenure is what we will define if term limits are good or bad, and that has yet to be seen..
It takes 5 out of 9 commissioners to make changes in the regs. The difference is that in future years, SB 64 insures that we won't have entrenched commissioners that will be able to horse-swap favors with their fellow entrenched commissioners to push their own personal agendas through.
If you want to argue that SB 64 led to this change, I'm all for debating the point. Talk about the stretch of the century.
It seems beyond nonsensical to me to think that an entrenched commissioner that got basically no oversight (other than how much money he donated to the sitting Governor to get reappointed) before SB 64 was actually thinking about the sportsman's best interest if he was willing to push whatever agenda he felt like pursuing once SB 64 was instituted.
Does anyone know what is on the agenda at these meetings? I'm heading to my first one this week?
BF.......on past discussions we had on SB64......I had always said the term limit part did'nt really matter to me one way or another. I can also agree on your entrenched statements....no doubt anyone can serve too long and loose focus.
However I do think RC's comments have some validity.
I think due to limited term...we will see more proposals based on individual district issues than an overall statewide focus. Ultimately having a majority of commissioners resorting to voting for individual pet projects just to attain enough votes to pass their own pet project.
You may respond and say.....they were doing it prior to 64. But I just think we created a greater sence of urgency. It will be interesting to see what gets proposed / voted on as each nears the end of their respective term.
This whole idea of commissioners blows my mind anyway. To be a commissioner, it is not about what you know, its about who you know. This in and of itself is a fundamentally flawed system of power. Why on earth do we have a "commissioner" making decisions? It is a system just begging for the good ol boy syndrome to run amuck. I say do away with commissioners, and let the decisions fall to the biologists who actually know what the heck they are talking about....save the state money, and we can feel better knowing decisions are being based on biology and not some twisted agenda. Off with their heads
That is where it falls upon us, the Sportsmen of KY, to nominate and elect only those who should be there. I do not know what the ratio of Sportsmen in a district vs. ballots cast in an election is, But I would venture a guess that it is very poor.
Then, once a group of well qualified persons are sent to the Gov. it is up to us to monitor what they do.
Ideally, now that we have term limits, and the comissioners no longer have to placate politicians in order to maintain their dynasty, they should use the political influence they needed to get the posioion, to keep the legislators off of the Dept, so that the biologist can manage the fish and wildlife in a Biologically sound manner.
From KDF&WR's website......a portion of the history through 1944.....
Back home, Kentucky sportsmen, fed up with the status quo and license monies being dumped into the general fund, joined together, forming the League of Kentucky Sportsmen in 1935. The league gave the Game and Fish Commission a political voice. The gathering force helped bring about the Reorganization Act of 1936, which profoundly changed the way the Division of Game and Fish would operate. It gave the division exclusive rights to all monies derived from license sales. The division was also placed under the newly formed Department of Conservation.
Then came 1937's Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. It gave states dollar power (from excise taxes on firearms and ammunition) they'd never had before. Kentucky was on the verge of having an agency capable of getting the best use of these federal dollars.
The Reorganization Act brought another change -- the hiring of the first trained game and fish person to oversee the division's operations. The Vermonter accomplished much in his six years. As director, Major James Brown increased the law enforcement branch to 30, enlarged the scope of the fisheries section, created a crew for transferring fish from overpopulated streams to less populous waters and began the first real public information drive the division had known.
In 1944, the fish and wildlife agency, as it functions today, was born. At the insistence of sportsmen’s organizations, the Kentucky General Assembly placed the Division of Game and Fish under civil service laws and made it an independent agency of state government, thus removing the agency as completely as possible from political control.
For the first time, a strong commission form of government was set up. The governor would appoint nine commissioners, one from each congressional district, with selections made from lists of five eligible sportsmen submitted from each district. Staggered terms insured the bipartisan panel wouldn't consist of all new members in any one year. The agency director was directly responsible to and hired by the commissioners. The commission board made major policy decisions, with direction from the director and qualified biologists.
The KDFWR continues functioning in this manner. Removing the agency from political control and putting it in the hands of sportsmen helped the KDFWR accomplish many feats over the years in preserving, restoring and protecting Kentucky’s natural resources.
All well and good. It is still a system ripe for abuse for a commissioner with an motive to do so.
"Removing the agency from political control and putting it in the hands of sportsmen"..... Now thats funny right there
We've really gotten off topic, but after dealing with the Dept. over the past several years, I think we have a pretty good system in place. Could it be better, of course, and most of the time the appointee is well-conected, but still the Governer has to pick a Commissioner from the top 5 vote getters in a district election. I think Daking has posted before that in most states, the Governor just pick whomever he wants.
It's possible that commissioners would push self-serving or district-serving agendas if they knew they were lame ducks, but any commissioner that would do that: (a) would be somebody I don't trust anyhow; and (b) would have to garner votes from 5 of his 9 fellow commissioners.
I think one benefit of SB 64 is that it should (at least a little bit) give the F&W commissioner (Jon Gassett) more autonomy to run KDFWR as he deems it should be run without potential interference and/or receiving constant "directions" from the commission.
Here's some food for thought, JD, which may surprise you. IMO, The F&W Commish is hired and gets paid to run F&W. He should be the main guy running the show, not a district commissioner, and IMO, it doesn't matter whether that person is Jon Gassett or Tom Bennett. When you have a group of entrenched district commissioners that all vote together and ostensibly could be there until they die, I'd think KDFWR would run the risk of having those "entrenched" commissioners controlling, "running" and basically dictating F&W's day-to-day operations, not the F&W commissioner. In short, I think SB 64 vests more power in the F&W Commissioner's Office and will help prevent the district commissioners from becoming "de facto" F&W commissioners. Essentially, I think it's a good thing, because I want our F&W commissioner to be independent and not simply a "yes" man for constant fear of being canned for not supporting the entrenched district commissioner's self-serving or district-serving plans.
I don't disagree, but to say that the sportsmen are really involved through the "election" of the Top 5 candidates isn't really fair or remotely accurate.
That being said, I'd also say that SB 64 provides an additional safety net against the "politicization" of KDFWR because it requires the appointment of the district commissioner to be approved by the Senate. If the sportsmen overwhelmingly supported Terry Sullivan, for instance, to be the commish of the 3rd, but Beshear insisted on appointing his biggest donor's PETA loving, son-in-law to the post, the sportsmen could contact their Senators and hopefully convince them to vote against the nomination. That would pave the way for Terry Sullivan to become the next commish of the 3rd.