Clueless.
It’s a word being tossed around Colorado outdoor circles with increased frequency regarding the newest member of the Colorado Wildlife Commission.
Dorothea Farris’ statements and actions during her brief tenure on the job raises serious questions regarding the Carbondale Democrat’s qualification to serve in a position that becomes increasingly more demanding in a period of controversy and conflict.
Moreover, the Farris issue also causes grave concerns whether the Bill Ritter administration truly understands the role and importance of the commission during these troubled times and the consequence of timely action in the state’s wildlife affairs.
On top of what has been a general patina of disorientation since she and Robert Streeter of Fort Collins were belatedly appointed May 27 to fill the remaining positions on the nine-member voting panel, Farris caused a stir at Thursday’s commission meeting with a comment that can only be considered, well, clueless.
Commissioners and public speakers were in serious discussion over the Division of Wildlife’s five-year big game season structure, specifically the critical time in late August and September to accommodate a growing participation during archery and muzzleloader seasons. This is what Farris blurted out.
“Before we leave the topic of the users of the area, we’ve surveyed the different hunting groups, but we haven’t surveyed two groups that are increasing . . . the number of people getting up into the high country, particularly when we have a fall like this,” Farris rambled.
“Especially when it’s mountain bikers and hikers and runners. Those numbers are increasing, which increases the conflict . . .”
What someone apparently neglected to tell Farris is that she isn’t a commissioner for mountain bikers and hikers, but for wildlife and sportsmen — particularly as it pertains to establishing hunting seasons and overall matters of resource management.
This is not an isolated outburst. She earlier caused a stir by stating she considered it reprehensible that Colorado allows moose hunting, a closely managed enterprise financed with sportsman dollars and hailed for its orderly management. Until the program was launched, no moose existed in the state. With sportsman’s funding and support, moose numbers continue to grow rapidly.
A reasonable person might conclude that Ms. Farris does not favor hunting, which raises the question of why she was appointed in the first place. Does she have pictures of key Democratic operatives? Is this a blatant payback for a political favor?
Either way, it speaks poorly of an administration that for weeks fumbled these appointments to the extent that the legislative session expired before the Senate gave formal approval, as required by law.
Farris remains an interim appointment, a fact that might spur concerned sportsmen to ask their respective senators to disapprove her appointment completely.
Such administrative bumbling also raises questions about a fast-approaching decision regarding two other commission seats. The four- year terms of Robert Bray and Richard Ray are up in March. Appointed by former Gov. Bill Owens, neither have avoided controversy.
Bray, the current chairman, represents agricultural interests on the commission. Despite early issues regarding a potential conflict of interest in receiving rich conservation easements and his possession of excessive numbers of landowner vouchers, Bray has evolved into a thoughtful arbiter with a more balanced concern for wildlife.
Ray is another matter. He was designated as a sportsman’s representative, but he and his family historically have been involved in the outfitting business and retain close ties to that commercial side of hunting. When the welfare of ordinary sportsmen and outfitters are at odds, Ray can be counted to vote for commerce. Few in the sportsman’s community consider him an ally.
These are among the decisions the administration must make, and soon. After mostly muddling for months through wildlife matters, it finally can snap to attention. Or remain, like Farris, clueless.
