llamapacker
Moderator
- Messages
- 1,072
The Wildife board just voted to maintain the Division's method of calculating conservation permit numbers. While the rule says 5% for most species, and 10% for sheep tags, the Division routinely rounds these numbers in such a way that it exceeds 5% significantly. In the case of pronghorn, a hard 5% cap would allow 25 conservation permits to be issued, but the Division's method of rounding allows 37 conservation permits to be awarded. I am disappointed with their decision.
I must say I was quite surprised to hear John Bair arguing strongly for the hard, 5% cap. Most other members of the board seemed only to want to focus on how much revenue they would lose by implementing the hard cap. There was no question that money was the motivating factor for most board members. I want to thank John for his efforts to push for the hard cap, and believe if he had made a motion for the hard cap, it probably would have passed. Several members of the public made statements supporting the 5% cap, although SFW seemed to be supporting the higher (rounded) numbers. It was a very confusing discussion once the public input was closed, with Board members making several competing proposals. Most of the proposals were never put to a vote, and the motion to accept business as usual cut off all other proposals. John did vote against the current proposal.
As a first step towards reigning in the excessive number of conservation tags, this proposal failed. It is clear that sportsmen's concerns are being herd, however, and we need to continue the outcry.
Bill
I must say I was quite surprised to hear John Bair arguing strongly for the hard, 5% cap. Most other members of the board seemed only to want to focus on how much revenue they would lose by implementing the hard cap. There was no question that money was the motivating factor for most board members. I want to thank John for his efforts to push for the hard cap, and believe if he had made a motion for the hard cap, it probably would have passed. Several members of the public made statements supporting the 5% cap, although SFW seemed to be supporting the higher (rounded) numbers. It was a very confusing discussion once the public input was closed, with Board members making several competing proposals. Most of the proposals were never put to a vote, and the motion to accept business as usual cut off all other proposals. John did vote against the current proposal.
As a first step towards reigning in the excessive number of conservation tags, this proposal failed. It is clear that sportsmen's concerns are being herd, however, and we need to continue the outcry.
Bill