# Why????



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Why does the UDWR need a new state law to tell them to do what they already have the authority to do and are doing? I don't get it, someone please enlighten me...

HB125: Division of Wildlife Resources amendments

Another bill that will be debated this year would direct the head of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to take "immediate action under certain circumstances" if big game herd populations fall under the number sought by the state biologists.

https://www.ksl.com/article/4670908...er-as-a-way-to-carve-future-recreation-trails


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Did they need WB approval before? That's the only reason I can think of.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

The Wildlife Board has the authority to do what this bill says they can already do. This last meeting they approved an emergency to put out many more cougar tags in areas where the herds are down. I don't see where more government/political involvement in wildlife management is a good thing. I just don't see the need for more laws.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/HB0125.html

I'd suggest reading the language of the bill itself and not just a news article if you want to know why they are doing it.

PBH may be happy about this one...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I like it.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Thanks niller, I'll give it a read

Edit:

Ok, so I read the language of the bill, and I understand it even though I don't chase ambulances, 

So does it say anything different, or give any more power than what already exists in Title 23 Wildlife Resources Code? That's my point. Yeah, yeah...its prolly nothing to most, but it irks me when new laws are passed that do the same thing as previous ones. I must be missing SOMETHING you guys aren't...

The WB and the Director have certainly taken emergency actions in the past, and just did last month. Is this new bill to cover their arse in case someone (like environmentalist groups) takes their actions to court?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

stillhunterman, it really does DO much to change the WB’s ability. But one thing to keep in mind is the only authority the Wildlife Board has is given to it from the legislature. So if the legislature passes a law saying “it is the policy of the state that big game animals are of great importance...” then the Wildlife Board will year that loud and clear. Instead of getting caught in the weeds and trying to balance competing interests, they have just been given a very clear directive. If they don’t follow it, maybe they lose their authority all together and the legislature will put another body in place that will follow its policy statements. 

That, of course, is the nuclear option and very extreme, but I assure you the AG reps for the wildlife board will keep this in the forefront for decision making purposes.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Hmmm, ok I see what you're saying. Even though Title 23 gives them the power to take emergency action, this bill is MANDATING it by law. Gotcha. Thank you.

Edit:

I'll drop the ambulance chasing thing, u deserve better, apologies...


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

stillhunterman said:


> Edit:
> 
> I'll drop the ambulance chasing thing, u deserve better, apologies...


No he doesn't.
#NillerHaterzUnite


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You can give me a hard time. It doesn’t bother me. A little friendly ribbing is acceptable and welcomed! No worries on my end. 

And my post was supposed to say it does NOT do much to change the authority, but seems to give more direction.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> You can give me a hard time. It doesn't bother me. A little friendly ribbing is acceptable and welcomed! No worries on my end.
> 
> And my post was supposed to say it does NOT do much to change the authority, but seems to give more direction.


Try to walk it back all you want Niller, I'm a convert to the end

#NillerHaterzUnite

<Full random draw>
#TOTP


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I like it too, so far as I can tell. 

Is Albrecht related to Iron Bear?


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

I think this bill is bad public policy. What this bill does is take decision making authority away from the professional biologists and gives it to politicians and special interest groups by mandating how they deal with the problem. Forget data, forget science, forget natural balance, and forget any environmental damage. This is the legislature telling biologists and the wildlife board how to do their job. Also, a majority of Utahns are not big game hunters so the premise this bill is based upon that only those mentioned big game animals add to the quality of life in Utah is absurd! 

As mentioned by others, the wildlife board and director already have the authority to implement changes based on recommendations of biologists and public hearings representing a variety of interests. This bill attempts to take that away.

Need I remind everybody that the purpose of Proposition 5 that we all fought for in the early 90's was to take politics out of game management decisions, this bill attempts to bring it back. This is a bad bill that I hope fails.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Kevin D said:


> I think this bill is bad public policy. What this bill does is take decision making authority away from the professional biologists and gives it to politicians and special interest groups by mandating how they deal with the problem. Forget data, forget science, forget natural balance, and forget any environmental damage. This is the legislature telling biologists and the wildlife board how to do their job. Also, a majority of Utahns are not big game hunters so the premise this bill is based upon that only those mentioned big game animals add to the quality of life in Utah is absurd!
> 
> As mentioned by others, the wildlife board and director already have the authority to implement changes based on recommendations of biologists and public hearings representing a variety of interests. This bill attempts to take that away.
> 
> Need I remind everybody that the purpose of Proposition 5 that we all fought for in the early 90's was to take politics out of game management decisions, this bill attempts to bring it back. This is a bad bill that I hope fails.


Thanks for the input. As I read through the bill, it gives the director of the DWR authority to enact regulatory changes. Assuming the DWR director is guided by biologists and not politicians and certain "conservation" groups, I read the bill doing what you are asking for.

As it currently stands, game management decisions have to go through the Wildlife Board and that can take time and be cumbersome, and heaven knows there are "political decisions" there.

If my interpretation is incorrect, I am open to being corrected here.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Assuming the DWR director is guided by biologists and not politicians and certain "conservation" groups, I read the bill doing what you are asking for.


Not guided by politicians..we're talking UT right?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

gdog said:


> Not guided by politicians..we're talking UT right?


I know. Maybe I'm naive, but I have a hair more hope the DWR director will be more science based in his/her decision making than the ($fw) Wildlife Board.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> PBH may be happy about this one...


Or not.

As Kevin pointed out, this is an end-around run by a politician that doesn't want to use biology. Sure, this might give some authority back to the DWR -- but the precedent of this law is a little scary.

My whole thing with predator control is to let the biologists make that call. Not a politician trying to satisfy an ignorant constituency, and thus gaining votes.

this whole thing is just crazy. If a legislator decides that they don't want to go through the process of dealing with RACs and WBs, then they just go in a change a law? Why is anyone OK with this?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> Or not.
> 
> As Kevin pointed out, this is an end-around run by a politician that doesn't want to use biology. Sure, this might give some authority back to the DWR -- but the precedent of this law is a little scary.
> 
> ...


Just out of curiosity, what do DWR staff think about this?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I don't know. It sounds to me like they have their hands full already with the WB...
:neutral:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> I don't know. It sounds to me like they have their hands full already with the WB...
> :neutral:


No kidding! Which was why, on first reading, the bills contents didn't sound like a bad idea. Like I said before though, I'm open to be educated on this and yours and KD's comments have been food for thought.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Just out of curiosity, what do DWR staff think about this?


The DWR has to stay a-political, so they are not going to comment publicly on this bill, but privately they've got to be seething. This is an attempt by those that don't have the same education level or expertise as the biologists telling them how to do their job. Frankly, I couldn't do their job. Where everyone from members of wildlife board to the general public is all but calling them incompetent. I thank god the Division can find employees like the current mammals coordinator that can take the abuse and not blow their tops.

The PhD student that I've been working with on the cougar collaring study is a little gal from south Florida that absolutely does not understand how we can allow politics to dominate wildlife policy here in Utah. I try to explain to her that many Utahns still have the frontier mentality where we are still trying to carve out a niche out of the wilderness for our existence, where we continue to manipulate mother nature to be more to our liking, where we seemingly only value domestic sheep and big horned ungulates. She is extremely sharp, she knows the biology, she knows the science, but she is just learning the political reality of game management in Utah. It's been a frustrating lesson for her.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Kevin D said:


> TThis is an attempt by those that don't have the same education level or expertise as the biologists telling them how to do their job.


Yep.

We see this same problem with the WB.

Personally, I think it should be a _requirement_ for all members of the WB to take, and complete, a basic biology course. Honestly -- they should be able to distinguish the differences between mammals and fish and amphibians and reptiles before they ever make any kind of decision on the WB.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> Yep.
> 
> We see this same problem with the WB.
> 
> Personally, I think it should be a _requirement_ for all members of the WB to take, and complete, a basic biology course. Honestly -- they should be able to distinguish the differences between mammals and fish and amphibians and reptiles before they ever make any kind of decision on the WB.


I think we are all on the same page in wanting biologists making biology calls and not political hacks. I guess that is why I have been so frustrated with the Wildlife Board system. While some members are no doubt good representatives, it has seemed to be a revolving door of political hacks like Tom Hatch or the succession of $fw officers taking their turn at the helm.

I have long thought it ridiculous that the DWR director is a* non-voting* member of the WB. I also feel that section heads should be allowed to vote on regs affecting their stewardship. I suppose I was hoping this bill may help some too but your points are well taken and due caution is advised in watching it progress (or not).

KD, as for your young biologist friend, I'm not sure we are too unique in Utah with politics interfering with biology decisions. The color of our politics may be a different shade that back East or on the Left coast but it is always a hassle.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Catherder said:


> KD, as for your young biologist friend, I'm not sure we are too unique in Utah with politics interfering with biology decisions. The color of our politics may be a different shade that back East or on the Left coast but it is always a hassle.


You're no doubt correct. I think she is experiencing the transition of going from the insulated halls of academia to the way things work in the real world. I tell her that it hasn't been too many generations back that we diverted every stream in the state for agriculture, were fighting off marauding grizzly bears and the occasional native Americans, and beating back invading crickets with the shirts off our back. So it should be understood that many Utahns still view nature as something to conquer rather than enjoying the natural order of things.

I also told her if she needed something a little less controversial to study maybe she should've opted to earn her PhD collaring our locally endangered boreal toads instead of cougars, because at least she wouldn't have wool growers and sportsmans groups lobbying for their destruction! (course I'd have to retrain my dogs to go catch 'em for her....;-))


----------

