This is the opportunity and the time for sportsmen to have a voice in the Colorado Parks and Wildlife merger. Don’t wait until decisions have already been made before you let your voice be heard!
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPW) have posted online a request for public input concerning the transition stages of the merger between the Colorado Department of Wildlife and Colorado State Parks. Meeting dates, group reports, and public input results will be posted online. Public input may be submitted in writing.
Visit the website: http://dnr.state.co.us/DPW/Pages/PublicInput.aspx
This site provides a timeline and the process for decision making within the new entity.
One topic debated is the composition of the DPW board. I will step on some toes here, but in my unpleasant and frankly futile experience a few years ago, when asked to serve on the interim Habitat Stamp Committee (one that was formed in an advisory role prior to the Governor appointing an official board,) the advisory board had approximately 20 members attending the meetings and was made up mostly by DOW officials and land owners. On that board were a few who were outfitters and/or represented wildlife groups, i.e. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Colorado Bowhunters Association. There were only two representing fisheries; a representative from Colorado Trout Unlimited, and myself representing the Colorado Bass Federation.
In my view, as a result of this overwhelming majority of land owners and DOW officials, the sportsmen’s voice and voting authority was nullified. We were heard at the meetings, but the majority of those attending were also recipients of funding or otherwise made their living off of the natural resources in Colorado. The fishing public’s voice was muted by the cry for more habitat payments to landowners and license disbursement to landowners and outfitters. These meetings were all about how to get the Habitat Stamp monies into their hands and not about improving habitat, frustrating the representatives of the fishing public.
On the DNR public input pages right now are the compiled results of previous calls for input. Regarding the formation of a board, there are as few as two sportsmen suggested and as many as four. Since a significant amount of the funding that the DPW receives stems from public fees: fishing and hunting license fees, park passes, parking fees, Wallop-Breaux excise taxes on the products we buy, etc., etc., I think that the board should have many more public representatives from the many forms of outdoor activities that pay these taxes rather than an overwhelming majority of funding recipients!
At this time the list of groups formed includes 11 different areas of responsibility covering a wide variety of areas including services, science, and volunteers. The only one listed that might not have department paid personnel involved is volunteers. Let’s see a work group of public members, instead of professional public service employees, with the purpose of giving the fishing public a voice in the decision making process! There should be a public hunting group represented as well. Face it; the hunting and fishing public alone pay the salaries of all the others!
Here is a suggestion that I submitted online:
I suggest that no matter how many board members there are that the board should be formed by: 20% associated with a hunting related public community, 20% associated with a fishing related public community, 20% landowner, industry and outfitters (Natural Resource business related), 20% Parks and Wildlife officials, and 20% at large and appointed by the Governor. That these board members serve a 5 year term and that member terms be staggered so that the board members are not all replaced at the same time. That the Governor shall appoint any vacancies until that term is completed and must follow the 20% guidelines above. That 'public community' be defined as an existing organization, of 100 members or more and open to public participation, with the express purpose of educating, maintaining, improving and enjoying public natural resources.
I believe that this format will better represent the public than in the past, especially the public that pays so many license, park, and usage fees, and also allow all the other interested parties representation.
No comments:
Post a Comment