Michael Graves is mad as heck and isn’t going to take it any more.
The Bailey resident has much in common with thousands of outdoorsmen frustrated by the commercialization of wildlife and what he perceives as official indifference to the plight of the ordinary man. The distinction is, he plans to do something about it.
Very soon, perhaps as early as today, Graves and his consort, Scott Isgar of Colorado Springs, will receive Title Board certification for two proposed amendments to Colorado’s constitution that, if approved, would forever change the way the state’s outdoor business is conducted.
The measures might work for the greater good, but, then again, maybe not.
At first blush, it seems unlikely that either will be approved by the electorate, perhaps not even receive the essential 68,000 signatures needed to make the November ballot. What seems more definite is that they represent an acute dissatisfaction, even anger, at the way Colorado’s game and fish affairs are conducted. Someone in the wildlife hierarchy should be paying attention to the message behind the initiatives.
“The single thing that upsets me most is how the Division of Wildlife has turned into a commercial operation and no longer cares how we stand as the average hunter,” Graves said. “The program is broken. Money drives everything. If we don’t do something, the Average Joe hunter will pay for it.”
To that end, Graves and Isgar propose to topple the hierarchy with a constitutional amendment that would require the Division of Wildlife director to be elected every six years beginning in 2008 and the nine voting members of the Wildlife Commission to be elected every four years beginning in 2010.
The second proposal demands that all resident license fee increases pass muster with the voters. Both invite considerable discussion.
Considering the current furor over such hot-button items as license preference for landowners and a prevalence of political influence in overall wildlife management, electing these officials might seem like a tempting idea.
Trouble is, this process opens the door to even more chicanery, most particularly in the election itself. If the horrors of recent wrangling over licenses teach anything, it’s that commercial interests will go to great lengths to promote their agenda; the great mass of sportsmen drift off to sleep.
Count on this: Should commission spots come up for vote, organizations such as the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, Colorado Farm Bureau, Colorado Outfitters Association and, most likely, certain anti-hunting groups will spend tons of money to get their people elected.
You know the campaign drill. A constant barrage of commercials, complete with all the obfuscations and half-truths that win the day. Most of all, money talks; the side that spends the most often wins the election.
If you think the current wildlife commission lineup with three active commercial voices is a problem, imagine what might happen if that discourse grows to a majority.
The second initiative, a reaction to the fee bill approved by the legislature last year, represents another angry clamor for clout in a system they view as increasingly flawed. But this ballot proposal itself contains a fatal fault in that it almost certainly would preclude any future license fee increase, strangling a wildlife agency whose demands and expenses surely will grow.
Underlying all of this are the problems inherent in transferring wildlife management to an uninformed public, to non-outdoorsmen, even to anti-hunters.
Graves made a similar attempt with these same initiatives a year ago, but withdrew when time ran short. Now he’s ahead of the curve, with five months to hustle up signatures.
Whether or not the effort succeeds, it’s sure to prompt a public dialogue that should have been heard years ago.
