Making Sense of Nonsense

 By Michael “Finnegan” Anderson

“Bowhunters have to accept a regional draw for the first two weeks.  If you don’t, you’ll lose statewide archery altogether.”

I was sitting in a mule deer committee meeting in the DWR offices in Springville when that ultimatum was put to me by the SFW board member who was serving as the Northern RAC representative.  Before I overcame my bewilderment that such an outrageous statement was being made in a room full of honorable men who had come to work together in good faith for the welfare of Utah’s deer herds, another mind-boggler followed.  “If bowhunters will accept this, we’ll take 5,000 permits from the Northern region and turn them into archery permits.”

Okay, I thought, we aren’t talking about taking care of deer now; we’re talking about something else.  “This committee can’t make an offer of 5,000 tags.  Tag allotments are the authority of the Wildlife Board.” I replied.

Sitting beside me was a member of the Wildlife Board who responded without missing a beat, “If you’ll accept this deal, the Board will approve it.”

I didn’t accept the deal, of course.  But I was willing to discuss it again at the next and final meeting of the committee because first, I was representing Utah’s bowhunters and had a responsibility to be absolutely certain of my response on your behalf.  Second, I was hoping that given an opportunity to consider, other committee members would realize how inappropriate this sort of wheeling and dealing was.  After all, this was the mule deer committee, not the mule deer hunter committee.

The propriety of wildlife management process deserves some explanation here.  It’s the core issue, irrespective of statewide archery and something that everyone involved with wildlife management needs to keep in mind for a variety of obvious and important reasons.  I’m disappointed that the state’s wildlife officials seem to disregard this propriety, especially UDWR Director and Wildlife Board chairman Jim Karpowitz.

Jim Karpowitz is a director member of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.  WAFWA represents 23 states and Canadian provinces as an advocate of the rights of states to manage wildlife within their borders.  WAFWA promotes the principles of sound resource management and habitat protection in the public interest.  Those principles include the 7 principles (sisters) of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.  Principle #6 affirms that science is the proper tool for the discharge of wildlife policy.  Principle #7 affirms that hunting must be democratic.

There’s another and more serious issue of propriety, that being the qualification for Pittman-Robertson funds.  As you know, these funds are generated through an excise tax on sporting goods and ammunition and are used to support a variety of wildlife projects including habitat acquisition and improvement.  To qualify for a portion of these funds, the state must “ensure public participation” in the development, revision and implementation of management plans and habitat projects.  A further requirement provides that the discretionary powers of the Wildlife Board cannot be used as a "prerogative for the advantage of the government as distinct from the people, or for the benefit of private individuals as distinguished from the public good.”  If the state is not in compliance, it can obviously be declared ineligible to receive funds.

Now let’s get back to the mule deer committee.  I returned to the final meeting with a clear and definite consensus from Utah bowhunters as well as the support of a couple concerned bowhunters who attended in person, one of whom was our BOU president emeritus Gordy Bell.  We made it clear that we would not accept the deal.

The DWR’s written summary of that final meeting included this statement: “There was much discussion to move permits from the Northern regional cap into the archery cap and make archers chose a region the first two weeks of the archery season and they could hunt statewide the remainder of the season.  This was not agreed upon by the archers and we decided to table it.  This may come back as a recommendation if the majority of archers are on board.”

Unfortunately, the Division did not comply with that statement, but made the recommendation without the consent of a majority of bowhunters…or any other majority, for that matter.  Several meetings were then called by BOU, UBA and local pro shops to prepare to address the issue at the RAC meetings.  Gordy and I, along with a representative from UBA had a private meeting with the DWR.  At that meeting, we asked to know who it was that was pushing the recommendation to do away with statewide archery.  Anis Aoude responded that it was the Division’s recommendation.  When I asked him why he was overriding the deer committee, he could only answer that there had been an “internal discussion”.  Many have speculated on the origins of the proposal.  Some blame “southern” hunters.  Others blame jealous rifle hunters.  I can only recall where I first heard the proposal, as I’ve reported to you here.

The rest, you know.  What will become of the archery deer hunt in 2010 isn’t certain.  Another committee has been approved for further discussion this spring, but I think there are other questions that beg some consideration.  Was any of the political maneuvering behind next year’s regional bowhunt based on science?  Anis Aoude freely admits that it was not.  Was the process by which the DWR arrived at this recommendation democratic?  There’s no evidence of it, but considerable evidence to the contrary.  Was due opportunity for public input provided?  That depends on whether or not you believe that public input should in actuality have an influence on the decision making process.  I certainly had my say on behalf of bowhunters, but did it mean anything?

You also know what they say about spilled milk, so I hope that we can look forward and face the problem rather than be distracted by yet another symptom of the problem.  In my opinion, there’s a serious problem within the Division and within the RAC process.  That problem should be a concern of everyone who has a stake in the future of wildlife management in Utah.  Smarter men than me might know a good strategy to deal with it.  But until they speak up, I can only suggest that 3 things must happen.

First, we need to improve our organization and that requires member recruitment.  Each of us need to take the initiative to encourage our fellow bowhunters to add their voices to ours.

Second, we each must become more actively informed and involved.  We need volunteers to take positions of local leadership, to organize and to develop networks.

Third, we need to educate our fellow hunters, the public, the DWR and the Wildlife Board about the value of bowhunting as a management tool.  One of the personal commitments that I’ve made as a result of my experience in this process has been to develop an informational presentation for each of the state’s 5 RACs and I’m asking each of you for assistance in that task.

If we fail to do these things, we will definitely see repeat performances of this process in which members of the Wildlife Board make unilateral decisions, go through the motions of providing opportunity for public input and then proceed with their own decisions and designs without due regard for science, common sense or meaningful public input.  If we allow this to continue, bowhunting will suffer.  But that isn’t really the point.  If we allow this to continue, the animals we love and revere will suffer.  That isn’t my wisdom, but the wisdom of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.