# Watch today's Wildlife Board meeting



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

The Utah Wildlife Board will hold an online meeting this morning, beginning at 9 a.m. Here's the feedback that board members have received prior to the meeting.

If you're interested, please check out the agenda and watch the meeting.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Thanks Amy!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Wow, this is a cluster right now! They are struggling to even know what they are doing on this LE/general elk deal. 

I'd challenge any one of these board members to describe what the state of things is this very moment based upon present votes. I'm guessing none could.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

As to the proposals on general hunts, everyone has their pet area. "Not in my backyard" could be the title of this discussion.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> As to the proposals on general hunts, everyone has their pet area. "Not in my backyard" could be the title of this discussion.


In other words, everything is normal


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Covey Jones is dropping some truth on this right now. This board has muffed this so badly!


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

Vanilla said:


> Covey Jones is dropping some truth on this right now. This board has muffed this so badly!


What did I miss?!


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

What’s this Hams hunt? What units?

Edit: saw box elder and stansbury but what are the other three?


----------



## RemingtonCountry (Feb 17, 2016)

Ray said:


> What's this Hams hunt? What units?
> 
> Edit: saw box elder and stansbury but what are the other three?


Box Elder, Sawtooth
Stansbury East
Southwest Desert, North


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Ray,

The Wildlife Board basically just told the RACs that they don't care that all of them recommended basically the same thing, they weren't going to follow it. (Even when a RAC rep asked why the Board was going away from a unanimous RAC recommendation) They then tried to say they were following the general approach to give more opportunity, and Covey called BS (in a respectful way, of course). 

A total cluster here man. This is worse off than it was before, IMO. If they didn't want more any bull units, they should have simply voted no.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I was surprised where the one member wanted to cut 7 days off of the sheep hunts down in the south west part of the state. He claimed that a couple of outfitters wanted to do this to get the start of the sheep hunt out of the end of the deer hunts. 

But then the board shut it down saying that it didn't go through the RAC's. 

I think that if he would of proposed to move the hunt forward a week and keep the same amount of days in the hunt that it would of passed. His problem was that he wanted to cut 7 days off of the hunt.


----------



## RemingtonCountry (Feb 17, 2016)

Increase number of any bull permits to 17,500 and unlimited youth permits and not have them count against the cap.

Presented - Wade Heaton
Second - Donnie Hunter

Passed, 5-1.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Covey just apologized to the Board for being "sharp" with them. I disagree. Someone needs to tell these guys they are screwing things up. 

Now they are going to make youth unlimited on any bull tags, increase any bull tags for adults only to 17,500, all with no more places to spread people out on the hunt.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Anyone who is a rifle hunter for elk, get ready to get completely railroaded by this specific Wildlife Board. 

The writing on the wall, and they are not even trying to hide it, that they fully intend to move elk dates around not only on the any bull, but on the LE units as well. This is such a joke.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

They don't even care that an issue never went to the public for discussion and comment. This Wildlife Board is a complete and total disaster for anyone that is concerned about representing the Utah public. They represent someone, that's for sure. Just not the general public of Utah.


----------



## RemingtonCountry (Feb 17, 2016)

Extending the general archery any bull hunt dates by 5 days for the next two years until the elk committee meets again.

Passed, unanimously.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

These guys can't even do some quick simple math. 

Now they are talking about removing non resident youth any bull tags and putting those tags into the resident youth any bull tags. Some simple math shows that it will only increase the resident opportunity by 0.01 of a percent.

You would think that they would be better off raising the number of permits issued instead of restricting things to just residents.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Man, I can't watch this anymore. Any public meeting has the chance to get bogged down, but they literally have no clue what they've done or not done and what is going on. This is so painful, I'm out.


----------



## RemingtonCountry (Feb 17, 2016)

I'm so confused and lost..........


----------



## copple2 (Jan 23, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Ray,
> 
> The Wildlife Board basically just told the RACs that they don't care that all of them recommended basically the same thing, they weren't going to follow it. (Even when a RAC rep asked why the Board was going away from a unanimous RAC recommendation) They then tried to say they were following the general approach to give more opportunity, and Covey called BS (in a respectful way, of course).
> 
> A total cluster here man. This is worse off than it was before, IMO. If they didn't want more any bull units, they should have simply voted no.


WHAT A JOKE! The board admitted they don't give a flip about the RAC's. They have their own agenda and move forward with that. I hope everyone watches this goat rodeo and I hope you do something about it. These cannot be the best folks to make decisions for the entire fate of Utah's wildlife.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

I listened in while working out and eating on my lunch break, I should have just listened to music instead 😂

Although, I do agree with the extra 5 days for archery


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I listened until the break. Even if I had nothing else to do today what a wasted 4 hours.

I do find it a little fun to watch Covey try to round up the herd called the Wildlife board.


----------



## Bowhunter50 (Oct 14, 2014)

So to summarize general elk...

17,500 tags and unlimited youth tags
no additional any bull units
extend archery season by 5 days


Did they change anything with multi season tags?


----------



## RemingtonCountry (Feb 17, 2016)

Bowhunter50 said:


> So to summarize general elk...
> 
> 17,500 tags and unlimited youth tags
> no additional any bull units
> ...


They discussed, but decided there wasn't enough public input and moved on.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

RemingtonCountry said:


> They discussed, but decided there wasn't enough public input and moved on.


Oh, so now they decided that they give a (bleep) about public input all the sudden?

Haha, what a joke!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

There were a number of items that were shot down because they hadn't gone through the RAC's first. 

A couple right off the top of my head were the dates for the southwest area sheep hunts where one member wanted to cut 7 days off the front of it, this failed and most said that it needed to go before the RAC's, then the youth any bull hunts where they wanted to eliminate the 50 tags that go to the non resident youth and give them to the resident youth hunters, this one also failed because it hadn't gone to the RAC's.

I'm not saying that they did a great job, because they didn't. It seamed like some wanted to push their addenda through without going through the RAC system and the ones that I saw were shot down. 

But it still looked like a circus with no one really knowing what was going on. Even when they went back to one member and asked him about his proposal and he couldn't even remember what he had proposed.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Thanks for the updates everyone. So I assume it's still an OTC--will be interesting to see how quick they sell out next summer. Maybe I should cash in my 15 elk points and hunt LE so I don't have to worry about any of it! Did the other elk recommendations pass like the unit adjustments on the boulder the the HAMS proposals?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I was also impressed with the comments by various board members of being inundated with feed back from individuals with the online process. No filter from the RAC's.

While I think I understand the process, I certainly don't think direct access to those who are making the decisions is a bad thing.

I didn't pick up anything on the Boulder HAMS hunt but the whole discussion was so much a ramble who knows? Maybe somebody was checking off boxes.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I've been trying to cache in my 15 LE elk points the last couple of years. They won't take them !!!
Too many point jumpers. Every year I'm right there......and guys with 19 or 20 points show up. 
I'll probably never get to spend my points.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

2full said:


> I've been trying to cache in my 15 LE elk points the last couple of years. They won't take them !!!
> Too many point jumpers. Every year I'm right there......and guys with 19 or 20 points show up.
> I'll probably never get to spend my points.


You can cash them in on the Oquirrh / Stansbury! lol


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think the best part of watching the meeting streamed online was seeing how badly the subtitles were misspelling about every other word. lol


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> I think the best part of watching the meeting streamed online was seeing how badly the subtitles were misspelling about every other word. lol


I kept on thinking it was Alexa screwing up. I don't think any self respecting closed caption typist could screw up that bad. :smile: It was distracting though.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

That's a problem with any voice activated typing program that is out there and I don't know about any of the rest of you but my eyes go automatically to the captions as it is typing. It is really hard when there are graphs or charts to look at while the person is speaking and you are trying to look at both of them.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You guys, they were not mistyping on the captions. That is exactly how it sounded audibly as well! 

There was no rational explanation for what happened yesterday. It was a total cluster, and the Wildlife Board spit in the face of Utah hunters to drive their own personal agendas. There are a handful of board meetings over the years where it isn't just about disagreeing with what they did, but how they went about it was a complete joke to a system that is supposed to represent the public managing a public resource. Yesterday was a total affront to that process.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Covey Jones should be running this state. The rest of these guys are clowns for the most part


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

hazmat said:


> Covey Jones should be running this state. The rest of these guys are clowns for the most part


I'm sure they're very nice people. They just need to stop pushing personal agendas in the face of what the biologists and RACs are telling them. We have a process for a reason, this board completely crapped on that process yesterday. I really hope someone has a behind the scenes talk with them and sets them straight. It was beyond ridiculous what I witnessed.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> I really hope someone has a behind the scenes talk with them and sets them straight. It was beyond ridiculous what I witnessed.


Who would that be? Sad to say, but those "clowns" are the last and ultimate word on wildlife regulations in this state.

Even sadder to say, the only entity that could "set them straight" is $FW, since they likely installed them in their positions but I doubt $FW was displeased with yesterdays proceedings.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

These guys don’t even know what order they should be discussing approvals. How can that even happen


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Who would that be? Sad to say, but those "clowns" are the last and ultimate word on wildlife regulations in this state.


Not entirely true. The Wildlife Board only has the power it has been given. There is a legislative session coming up. Just sayin...

They can be put in check pretty quickly if they step too far out of line. They flirted with that very closely yesterday. I'm planning to talk to my reps.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Not entirely true. The Wildlife Board only has the power it has been given. There is a legislative session coming up. Just sayin...
> 
> They can be put in check pretty quickly if they step too far out of line. They flirted with that very closely yesterday. I'm planning to talk to my reps.


Good point. In the past though, Wildlife Board issues haven't seemed to move the needle much with the legislature, but maybe things have changed.

Whereas, WB members are picked by the Governor, perhaps some well placed voices of dissatisfaction to Cox may tell us how his administration will react to wildlife issues. -Ov-


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

hazmat said:


> Covey Jones should be running this state. The rest of these guys are clowns for the most part


+1.

This is exactly what I thought when I watched it. A couple of the RAC chairs seemed to have their heads on straight as well. But the board...holy smokes! Time to clean house.

Absolutely ridiculous to completely ignore the public process and push their own agenda.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

hazmat said:


> Covey Jones should be running this state. The rest of these guys are clowns for the most part


That would not end well for Utah or it's wildlife. Checks and balances please.

I really don't think those units that were proposed to make general any bull would have had much effect on alleviating crowding. There are not many elk on them, especially to justify unlimited tags or even 5k more than the 15k. I think it may just boil down to just give out more general any bull tags until people are just sick of buying a tag and seeing 10x more people than elk. Then the demand might go down some. I like the direction the board went with the additional hams hunt units instead. IMO, I think less effective weapons and restricting technology are the answer to the increased demand for tags along with pleasing landowners with a revamed landowner rule so Utah can grow more elk in the state.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I could be wrong but I don't think Covy would scale up well. 

That being said I thought the unlimited tag proposal was exactly what Covy said it was. Trying to determine the true demand for them. Tell somebody they can't have something and then everybody wants it.

I agree the proposed general areas maybe wouldn't have many takers but it will be interesting to see if all the HAMS hunts are popular enough to reduce demand for the general tags.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

flinger said:


> hazmat said:
> 
> 
> > Covey Jones should be running this state. The rest of these guys are clowns for the most part
> ...


Pretty easy compromise would have been to split it. Open up a couple new general bull units and the rest stay at limited entry with HAM hunts. But half that board is to head strong to think rationally. 
If you think these HAM hunts are going to drastically help with point creep you are mistaken. Also are you gonna waste your points on one of these crappy limited entry units ??? 
Utah's General bull hunt is the laughing stock in the western United States and unfortunately it's going to stay that way. 
Because some people out there think every last square mile of the state needs to be a trophy unit


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Whereas, WB members are picked by the Governor, perhaps some well placed voices of dissatisfaction to Cox may tell us how his administration will react to wildlife issues. -Ov-


I'm expecting good things from Cox. He's nothing at all like Herbert. He knows the difference between right and wrong and I think he'll lend a sympathetic ear to grievances about his WB.

Where the Legislature can make itself useful would be in updating the entire process. Can we really expect just 7 part-time people to make quality decisions on all regulated wildlife in the state? Meantime, the deference to private organizations at the RACs as well as the WB may be founded on some notion that it maximizes public input, but it definitely stifles voices of dissent.

The state was a very different place in the 1920s when the first iteration of a wildlife board was invented. It's a different place today than it even was when the RACs were created in the 1990s. Time to rethink and retool.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

hazmat said:


> flinger said:
> 
> 
> > hazmat said:
> ...


Actually I would love to burn my points on one of them. I tend to think they shouldn't have a 5 year waiting period like the non-"crappy" limited entry units because success rates will likely be lower on hams.
Nevada used to have a variable waiting period 10 if you harvested, 5 if you didn't harvest. Maybe something like that could be looked at.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You guys are acting like the 5 new general any bull units and unlimited elk tags are Covy’s plan. 

There is an elk committee, that spends lots of time with lots of different stake holders that discuss things. They make recommendations. Those recommendations go through the RACs, where more people get to discuss and debate them. Wildlife biologists contribute and give their input and recommendations. Then the overall recommendation goes to the Wildlife Board who sets the policy. It’s not a perfect system, it can still be manipulated by special interests, but when actually followed, it ends up being pretty good. 

These stupid actions they took were not a part of the elk committee recommendations or the recommendations from the RACs overall. One RAC had an issue “in their backyard” and it just snowballed from there. Everyone saw a chance to drive their own agenda based upon the emails they’d personally received. 

Really? Emails the Wildlife Board personally receives take precedent over ideas that have gone through months/years of vetting and public input? If that’s the case...get ready for some friggin emails, Board members!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I realize that the elk committee proposed the changes and I also agree that the RAC process was thrown to the wind.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Finnegan's comment about 7 part time guys running the show is spot on. My problem is understanding how to change it. It seems like if the Governor is appointing the board then organized entities are given more sway on the selection process. It comes down to that nasty word POLITICS.

I'll still support the RAC process but have no problem venting my frustration directly to the board.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

https://mediatemple.net/blog/design...-designers-can-learn-from-a-simpsons-classic/

This blog reminded me of this discussion. Need to be careful with taking what customers say at face value.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I don't believe for a second that the RAC process or WB was ever a good idea. I still believe and always have that the local regional biologists should be ultimately responsible for setting tag numbers and establishing local regulations.

Once the RACs and WB was created and the process instituted, the doors were opened for wildlife management to get more and more political, which it has. Changing WB members or RAC members won't change that. Getting the legislature involved won't change that either. What needs to be changed is the process. Put the responsibility back on the bios shoulders and allow the public input through committees and direct communication with the bios.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Wildlife biologists should absolutely have a very important seat at the table. I think right now their seat is mostly token, where it should probably be at the head of the table. Any amendment that is not biologically sound should be rejected summarily. Our biologists should be able to sign off on all wildlife management policy decisions, or we shouldn't do them. 

I do not, however, think that all wildlife and hunter management rulemaking authority should be vested in a local biologist.


----------



## copple2 (Jan 23, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Wildlife biologists should absolutely have a very important seat at the table. I think right now their seat is mostly token, where it should probably be at the head of the table. Any amendment that is not biologically sound should be rejected summarily. Our biologists should be able to sign off on all wildlife management policy decisions, or we shouldn't do them.
> 
> I do not, however, think that all wildlife and hunter management rulemaking authority should be vested in a local biologist.


I agree 100% on the decisions needing to be biologically sound..

I also think that the current RAC committee structure is closer to what it could/should be on the Wildlife Board level. I would ideally like to see reps for sportsman, public lands, private lands, wildlife biology, farmers/ranchers, tribe to all have a seat at the table and all play into the decision making process.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

copple2 said:


> I agree 100% on the decisions needing to be biologically sound..
> 
> I also think that the current RAC committee structure is closer to what it could/should be on the Wildlife Board level. I would ideally like to see reps for sportsman, public lands, private lands, wildlife biology, farmers/ranchers, tribe to all have a seat at the table and all play into the decision making process.


UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES
STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ELK
I. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
A. General
The statewide elk management plan provides overall guidance and direction for Utah's elk
management program. This plan briefly describes general information on elk natural history,
management, habitat, and population status. *This statewide elk management plan was revised by
a 20 person advisory committee. The committee was diverse and had representation from: the
Utah Wildlife Board, 5 Regional Advisory Councils, Brigham Young University, Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Utah Bowman's Association, US
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Utah Farm Bureau, Cooperative Wildlife
Management Unit Association, Utah Guides and Outfitters, Utah State Legislature, private
landowners, livestock permittees, public at large, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources*
(UDWR). This group met five times from June 2 to August 11, 2015. The committee identified
components of the last elk plan that were working well and areas that could be improved upon,
and then developed goals, objectives, and strategies to address those management issues.
B. Dates Covered
The elk plan was approved by the Wildlife Board on December 2, 2015 and will be in effect until
December 2022.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

And the elk committee was responsible for the changes proposed to the RACS this year.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Wildlife biologists should absolutely have a very important seat at the table. I think right now their seat is mostly token, where it should probably be at the head of the table. Any amendment that is not biologically sound should be rejected summarily. Our biologists should be able to sign off on all wildlife management policy decisions, or we shouldn't do them.
> 
> I do not, however, think that all wildlife and hunter management rulemaking authority should be vested in a local biologist.


We have had more than a few discussions over the years about what can be done about the "Wildlife Board" problem. While many answers are not easy, there are 2 acts of reform I would like to see.

1. I have always felt it was idiotic that the DWR head is a nonvoting member of the Wildlife board. I am of the opinion that he should be a voting member.

2. I also believe that the section head of the regulation/action under discussion, in this case Covy, should also be allowed a vote on the action under his/her purview.

These simple actions would allow a true voice for the biologists in the know, but also provide the "checks and balances" some guys are demanding.


----------



## copple2 (Jan 23, 2008)

middlefork said:


> UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES
> 
> STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ELK
> 
> ...


Now if only the WB would honor the recommendations made here...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Make no mistake, I don’t always love what the deer and elk committees have recommended. But at least they followed a legitimate process. 

Catherder, I like those proposed changes. I could get on board with that.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I am seeing a troubling trend in the WB Meetings held via remote communication & the DWR/public not in physical attendance. It appears to me that the WB is becoming more and more emboldened in imposing their own individual agendas and in this last meeting they did so without much hesitation. I've participated in a number of meetings in "the process" and I've never heard the phrases "I'm not in favor of that..." or "I don't like that..." or "I can't get behind that..." more frequently in a meeting in regards to a DWR recommendation. I think that some individuals on the WB are feeling far too comfortable and confident on these remote communication calls sitting in their comfy home offices surrounded by their taxidermy not seeing all the public and DWR faces that they are making decisions on behalf of. At least when the meetings were face to face the Wildlife Board had to look into the faces of the DWR folks and general public in attendance before disregarding them with their motions and votes.

I really don't like the trajectory that these remote meetings have taken.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

derekp1999 said:


> I am seeing a troubling trend in the WB Meetings held via remote communication & the DWR/public not in physical attendance. It appears to me that the WB is becoming more and more emboldened in imposing their own individual agendas and in this last meeting they did so without much hesitation. I've participated in a number of meetings in "the process" and I've never heard the phrases "I'm not in favor of that..." or "I don't like that..." or "I can't get behind that..." more frequently in a meeting in regards to a DWR recommendation. I think that some individuals on the WB are feeling far too comfortable and confident on these remote communication calls sitting in their comfy home offices surrounded by their taxidermy not seeing all the public and DWR faces that they are making decisions on behalf of. At least when the meetings were face to face the Wildlife Board had to look into the faces of the DWR folks and general public in attendance before disregarding them with their motions and votes.
> 
> I really don't like the trajectory that these remote meetings have taken.


"surrounded by their taxidermy". lol. Thanks for the chuckle this morning. :grin:

I agree that virtual meetings are not a great substitute. Hopefully the hysteria will end soon and the next meeting will be in person.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

derekp1999 said:


> I really don't like the trajectory that these remote meetings have taken.


I don't necessarily disagree with you.

Just don't get your hopes up for going back to in-person meetings. Heck, I'll be surprised to see the State ever go back to working from the office. One thing corona has taught many agencies is that paying for buildings is expensive.

(I can't hardly believe that the Forest Service began construction on the new office in Cedar City! They'll get it finished, and it will sit empty because all the employees will be working from home...)


----------



## BMCBryce (Sep 6, 2012)

Hello everyone... 
I just wanted to share this info with each of you on here. I was about as displeased as I could have been with how things went during the most recent board meeting. Without beating a dead horse too much, I will agree with what some have already mentioned in their posts. In my attempt to make sense of it all I decided to send Covy Jones a text. He is a friend of mine and is very down to earth guy. Knowing we would likely have a lengthy conversation, he called me right away. We spoke for about 45 minutes and I was left feeling a bit better about things. His background is Biology. He said "the biological part of my job is the easy. When you get into the social and political side of things it becomes far more complicated." I mentioned my frustrations and some of my concerns to him and he was a good sport to hear me out and reassure me that it's not all doom and gloom. 

I asked him what could I do to have my voice be heard and to express my concerns. He said the very best way to approach this would be to send a letter/email to each member of the board, the Director of the Division and to the Chair of my Rack. He also mentioned it would be important to keep the message short, direct, concise and not be rude or condescending in nature. If we hope to improve or change how this system operates WE must tell them that we are not being represented properly. Offering other solutions and ideas is also a big part of change. Some of my ideas are probably not very good, but I'm confident that at least a couple of them could be.


If you feel the need to let "the powers that be" know how the decisions made on your behalf have or will impact you and those you care about, I would suggest doing the same. Sending the above listed individuals your thoughts and feelings about the board meeting. Whether we agree with it or not, this is the system that is in place and the only thing we can do at this point is let them know who we are and what we would like to see done differently. With enough public outcry, we simply will not be overlooked - or at least that is the hope. I still have hope that the system is not completely broken. While I still have a voice as a Sportsman, as a father and as a person that loves wildlife then I intend to use that voice to best protect what I love however I can.


----------



## copple2 (Jan 23, 2008)

BMCBryce said:


> Hello everyone...
> 
> I just wanted to share this info with each of you on here. I was about as displeased as I could have been with how things went during the most recent board meeting. Without beating a dead horse too much, I will agree with what some have already mentioned in their posts. In my attempt to make sense of it all I decided to send Covy Jones a text. He is a friend of mine and is very down to earth guy. Knowing we would likely have a lengthy conversation, he called me right away. We spoke for about 45 minutes and I was left feeling a bit better about things. His background is Biology. He said "the biological part of my job is the easy. When you get into the social and political side of things it becomes far more complicated." I mentioned my frustrations and some of my concerns to him and he was a good sport to hear me out and reassure me that it's not all doom and gloom.
> 
> ...


Good insight and well said, Bryce.

In addition, reach out to your local state representatives as well. Those are the folks that have the ear of the governor himself. We all could be doing more and these suggestions are a good start.


----------



## Rmanwill (Mar 5, 2021)

Thanks Amy


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Rmanwill said:


> Thanks Amy


You just resurrecting every old thread you can?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> You just resurrecting every old thread you can?


I think that he was trying to build post so that he could send a PM to someone.


----------

