Any taxpayer eligible to vote in New Hampshire has the constitutional right to petition the Superior Court if that citizen believes a government entity is misusing public funds.
MEPD Rep uses an ancient trope here: With humans managing wildlife they will all starve. Ridiculous. Given the extinction rate humans have created, it seems wild creatures did better before we came around. But the point is not relevant here. Someone is taking F&G to task for using public funds without representing 97% of the citizens of NH. Money is now taken even from the General Fund to support F&G. The majority of people who make up the F&G Commission come from the hunting and trapping community. Their priorities do not represent most of our priorities and yet our tax dollars are supporting them. At the very least this is an issue which should air before the public and efforts are being made to halt the lawsuit attempting to do this. This is not about ending hunting sports. It is about moving this agency out of the 1940s dark ages and into a modern society whose views on the taking of our wildlife must have an equal voice among the managers of our wildlife.
Wow, that didn't take very long. I must have pushed the right button and revealed what this whole thing is really all about. It's not about wildlife management that's for sure. What it is about is stopping hunting, fishing, and trapping in the name of "animal rights".
The funny thing about "Activists" is you can spot their tactics pretty easily if you pay close attention.
What exactly are your proposals for keeping these wild animal populations in check so that they don't all starve from overpopulation as habitats continue to shrink?
So far, without any Apex predators, hunting and trapping are the most humane, sustainable, and organic means of keeping wildlife populations healthy and in check, with the added benefit of feeding people.
Most of the artificial/chemical/mechanical "humane" means have proven to be largely ineffective resulting in worse outcomes. If anything, you should be encouraging more people to hunt, experience nature, and repect how the natural order of things actually works.
Thank you to the commenter above for clarifying why this lawsuit is so important ! The Legislature has guaranteed to NH citizens that opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping and wildlife viewing will be preserved and protected, but only 3 of these groups have representation on the F & G Commission.... wildlife viewers do not. The Commission oversees, supervises and approves expenditures of both state and federal tax dollars but represents only a small and dwindling percentage of the population. Now let's put the shoe on the other foot... suppose there was a state Commission that represented only vegans/vegetarians, but spent tax dollars ... how would the hunters, trappers and anglers feel about that ? We are not asking for every request to be filled, or every decision to be made in our favor, we are just asking for fair representation in exchange for our tax dollars. That's what our founding fathers died for.
Really? How do you know this? Are you trying to say that hunters, trappers, and fishermen are not obsessive, keen observers of wildlife?
I'd beg to differ. I'd also challenge the assumption(s) of the "Animal Rights" gang when it comes to who has more of a vested interest literally and figuratively when it comes to supporting a growing and healthy wildlife population.
I have spent dollars and time observing, cataloging, researching, and supporting our natural resources, habitat, and wildlife.
I know that wildlife viewers do not have representation on the F & G Commission because it is a statutory requirement that members of the Commission have held a hunting, trapping or fishing license in 5 of the 10 years prior to their appointment. It's also a statutory requirement that members of the Commission must be nominated by sporting clubs which acknowledge in their permanent bylaws the promotion of hunting, trapping and fishing. What MEPD Ret fails to grasp is that this discussion is not about hunters vs animal rights activists ,it is about fair representation in exchange for tax dollars, which is something that is guaranteed by the state Constitution. MEPD Ret would likely be very upset if his tax dollars were used to promote the interests of vegans/vegetarians and exclude the interests of hunters/trappers/anglers ... that's how we feel and it's time for the for the F & G Commission to represent all taxpayers equally.
This lawsuit has long been needed to create a more diverse Commission that represents the views of all of the people of NH. Fewer than 4% of the population holds hunting or trapping licenses, yet all Commissioners are required to have one. Therefore, the 96% of us who want to see wildlife alive and thriving are not having our interests represented. Time and again we have brought concerns about the sharp decline in various predator populations and have been dismissed. We’ve tried to protect baby squirrels and coyotes from being orphaned when their parents are shot or trapped, to no avail. Otters, raccoons, foxes, fishers, coyotes- all being brutally trapped and hunted. Bear and coyote baiting and hounding. Moose hunting on a declining population. So many times our wishes don’t get heard. Why should such a small minority control all aspects of wildlife “management”? I do hope that this lawsuit will go forward and that the plaintiff will prevail. If not, we will never stop trying to become like other states and have environmental and wildlife groups represented on this Commission. It needs to be democratic and it currently is not.
Let's boil this down to its primary objective, okay?
"...proposed to change the nominating process and
qualifications for Fish and Game Commissioners to include conservation organizations, animal protection organizations, and other organizations and individuals with non-consumptive interests in
wildlife."
So, what we really have here is an anti-hunting/animal rights group trying to vie for control of our wildlife resources.
I'll give you an A for effort but, unfortunately, the "Feel good animal rights gang" has a deplorable record and lacks the professional experience or scientific background of the Licensed Hunting, Fishing, or Trapping population when it comes to Wildlife Management.
And the Court(s) agrees: "... the General Court finds that it is in the best interests of the state and its citizens that the Fish & Game Department recognize, preserve and promote our special heritage of hunting, fishing, trapping and wildlife viewing by providing opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping and wildlife viewing ."
Besides, the whole argument about percentages does really hold up anyway. Heavily populated areas are far less likely to hunt, fish or trap and don't represent the demographics of the area where the wildlife live.
What are you afraid of? Remove the hunting or fishing license requirement and let the best man or woman serve on the Commission. The Governor and the Executive Councilors will still have the final say and decide who is best to serve, but at the very least make this a fair fight.
Or, go and get a Hunting License and maybe look beyond your own comfort zone and prejudices. You might surprise yourself at the level of time and energy the Hunting Community devotes to Wildlife Management.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(10) comments
MEPD Rep uses an ancient trope here: With humans managing wildlife they will all starve. Ridiculous. Given the extinction rate humans have created, it seems wild creatures did better before we came around. But the point is not relevant here. Someone is taking F&G to task for using public funds without representing 97% of the citizens of NH. Money is now taken even from the General Fund to support F&G. The majority of people who make up the F&G Commission come from the hunting and trapping community. Their priorities do not represent most of our priorities and yet our tax dollars are supporting them. At the very least this is an issue which should air before the public and efforts are being made to halt the lawsuit attempting to do this. This is not about ending hunting sports. It is about moving this agency out of the 1940s dark ages and into a modern society whose views on the taking of our wildlife must have an equal voice among the managers of our wildlife.
Save a lot of time and just get a fishing license, then try to get on the board.
Wow, that didn't take very long. I must have pushed the right button and revealed what this whole thing is really all about. It's not about wildlife management that's for sure. What it is about is stopping hunting, fishing, and trapping in the name of "animal rights".
The funny thing about "Activists" is you can spot their tactics pretty easily if you pay close attention.
What exactly are your proposals for keeping these wild animal populations in check so that they don't all starve from overpopulation as habitats continue to shrink?
So far, without any Apex predators, hunting and trapping are the most humane, sustainable, and organic means of keeping wildlife populations healthy and in check, with the added benefit of feeding people.
Most of the artificial/chemical/mechanical "humane" means have proven to be largely ineffective resulting in worse outcomes. If anything, you should be encouraging more people to hunt, experience nature, and repect how the natural order of things actually works.
Thank you to the commenter above for clarifying why this lawsuit is so important ! The Legislature has guaranteed to NH citizens that opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping and wildlife viewing will be preserved and protected, but only 3 of these groups have representation on the F & G Commission.... wildlife viewers do not. The Commission oversees, supervises and approves expenditures of both state and federal tax dollars but represents only a small and dwindling percentage of the population. Now let's put the shoe on the other foot... suppose there was a state Commission that represented only vegans/vegetarians, but spent tax dollars ... how would the hunters, trappers and anglers feel about that ? We are not asking for every request to be filled, or every decision to be made in our favor, we are just asking for fair representation in exchange for our tax dollars. That's what our founding fathers died for.
"wildlife viewers do not"
Really? How do you know this? Are you trying to say that hunters, trappers, and fishermen are not obsessive, keen observers of wildlife?
I'd beg to differ. I'd also challenge the assumption(s) of the "Animal Rights" gang when it comes to who has more of a vested interest literally and figuratively when it comes to supporting a growing and healthy wildlife population.
I have spent dollars and time observing, cataloging, researching, and supporting our natural resources, habitat, and wildlife.
I know that wildlife viewers do not have representation on the F & G Commission because it is a statutory requirement that members of the Commission have held a hunting, trapping or fishing license in 5 of the 10 years prior to their appointment. It's also a statutory requirement that members of the Commission must be nominated by sporting clubs which acknowledge in their permanent bylaws the promotion of hunting, trapping and fishing. What MEPD Ret fails to grasp is that this discussion is not about hunters vs animal rights activists ,it is about fair representation in exchange for tax dollars, which is something that is guaranteed by the state Constitution. MEPD Ret would likely be very upset if his tax dollars were used to promote the interests of vegans/vegetarians and exclude the interests of hunters/trappers/anglers ... that's how we feel and it's time for the for the F & G Commission to represent all taxpayers equally.
This lawsuit has long been needed to create a more diverse Commission that represents the views of all of the people of NH. Fewer than 4% of the population holds hunting or trapping licenses, yet all Commissioners are required to have one. Therefore, the 96% of us who want to see wildlife alive and thriving are not having our interests represented. Time and again we have brought concerns about the sharp decline in various predator populations and have been dismissed. We’ve tried to protect baby squirrels and coyotes from being orphaned when their parents are shot or trapped, to no avail. Otters, raccoons, foxes, fishers, coyotes- all being brutally trapped and hunted. Bear and coyote baiting and hounding. Moose hunting on a declining population. So many times our wishes don’t get heard. Why should such a small minority control all aspects of wildlife “management”? I do hope that this lawsuit will go forward and that the plaintiff will prevail. If not, we will never stop trying to become like other states and have environmental and wildlife groups represented on this Commission. It needs to be democratic and it currently is not.
Let's boil this down to its primary objective, okay?
"...proposed to change the nominating process and
qualifications for Fish and Game Commissioners to include conservation organizations, animal protection organizations, and other organizations and individuals with non-consumptive interests in
wildlife."
So, what we really have here is an anti-hunting/animal rights group trying to vie for control of our wildlife resources.
I'll give you an A for effort but, unfortunately, the "Feel good animal rights gang" has a deplorable record and lacks the professional experience or scientific background of the Licensed Hunting, Fishing, or Trapping population when it comes to Wildlife Management.
And the Court(s) agrees: "... the General Court finds that it is in the best interests of the state and its citizens that the Fish & Game Department recognize, preserve and promote our special heritage of hunting, fishing, trapping and wildlife viewing by providing opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping and wildlife viewing ."
Besides, the whole argument about percentages does really hold up anyway. Heavily populated areas are far less likely to hunt, fish or trap and don't represent the demographics of the area where the wildlife live.
Nice try...
What are you afraid of? Remove the hunting or fishing license requirement and let the best man or woman serve on the Commission. The Governor and the Executive Councilors will still have the final say and decide who is best to serve, but at the very least make this a fair fight.
Or, go and get a Hunting License and maybe look beyond your own comfort zone and prejudices. You might surprise yourself at the level of time and energy the Hunting Community devotes to Wildlife Management.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.