Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Discussion Topic: On Politics and Hunting Regs

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

July 01, 2009

Discussion Topic: On Politics and Hunting Regs

By Dave Hurteau

A bill sponsored by Louisiana State Rep. James Armes that would have allowed lawmakers to review and potentially nix hunting season dates, bag limits, and restrictions set by the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission has failed.

The idea was that the Legislature would provide a check and balance to the Commission and the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, which may sound sort of reasonable to some. But on the other hand, is getting politicians involved ever a good idea? Would you want them calling your shots?

Check out the full story and tell us what you think. 

Comments (14)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Big O wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

They can even run their "own show". Why would "we" want them "screwing up" "ours".

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from trophyslayer wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

This sounds about as smart as the employee free choice act of 2009. I'm always for politicians getting the heck out of the way. Less is more with government.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MB915 wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

How would politicians without a biology degree or some other relaveant degree be able to supply the proper check and balance. Leave politics out of science.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from MaxPower wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

C'mon guys, politics and science can mix well. Just look at what they've accomplished with 'Global Warming'.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Koldkut wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

If it works like it should, the politicians should be consulting the experts, who they are supposed to be checking and balancing......just cut the politicians out of the mix.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from seadog wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

Let me get this straight--lawmakers want to micro-manage game & fish regulations. If that's the answer, the question must have been: What can we do to really screw things up?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from peter wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

im glad it didnt get passed it seems theres a lot of government polititions getting involeed in almlost everthing at least they are not controlling the fish and game comission

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ranger2 wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

I am of the staunch opinion that the role of the legislature should end with nominating really qualified people to run the Game and Fish commission. Period.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from bluecollarkid wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

After watching the Hurricane Chris vid on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wOTn2xw3VM&feature=related) I'm not really surprised that said politicians would propose such a law and am emphatically glad that it was defeated.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

Years ago getting politicians involved in Kaibab was bad enough!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from GiantWhitetails wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

keep the gov out of our business and let the states and people decide.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from idahooutdoors wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

Politics needs to stay out of wildlife management, just look at what the politicians did to our Elk herd here in Idaho with their pet wolf project....they can't even manage what they are already suppossed to....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FloridaHunter1226 wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

When people get involved in something they know nothing about, it usually does not turn out good at all. Same thing goes here... why would politicians, with no experience or expertise in fish, wildlife, or the environment get involved in such a thing?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brian W. Thair wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

There is a simple choice: game management for political motives and game management with biological evidence. I do not believe that politicians grasp the concept of sustained yield beyond their success in the next election.
I'm pleased to read that the measure failed.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from MB915 wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

How would politicians without a biology degree or some other relaveant degree be able to supply the proper check and balance. Leave politics out of science.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Big O wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

They can even run their "own show". Why would "we" want them "screwing up" "ours".

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from seadog wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

Let me get this straight--lawmakers want to micro-manage game & fish regulations. If that's the answer, the question must have been: What can we do to really screw things up?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from MaxPower wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

C'mon guys, politics and science can mix well. Just look at what they've accomplished with 'Global Warming'.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ranger2 wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

I am of the staunch opinion that the role of the legislature should end with nominating really qualified people to run the Game and Fish commission. Period.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from trophyslayer wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

This sounds about as smart as the employee free choice act of 2009. I'm always for politicians getting the heck out of the way. Less is more with government.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Koldkut wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

If it works like it should, the politicians should be consulting the experts, who they are supposed to be checking and balancing......just cut the politicians out of the mix.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from peter wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

im glad it didnt get passed it seems theres a lot of government polititions getting involeed in almlost everthing at least they are not controlling the fish and game comission

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bluecollarkid wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

After watching the Hurricane Chris vid on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wOTn2xw3VM&feature=related) I'm not really surprised that said politicians would propose such a law and am emphatically glad that it was defeated.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

Years ago getting politicians involved in Kaibab was bad enough!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from GiantWhitetails wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

keep the gov out of our business and let the states and people decide.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from idahooutdoors wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

Politics needs to stay out of wildlife management, just look at what the politicians did to our Elk herd here in Idaho with their pet wolf project....they can't even manage what they are already suppossed to....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FloridaHunter1226 wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

When people get involved in something they know nothing about, it usually does not turn out good at all. Same thing goes here... why would politicians, with no experience or expertise in fish, wildlife, or the environment get involved in such a thing?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Brian W. Thair wrote 2 years 31 weeks ago

There is a simple choice: game management for political motives and game management with biological evidence. I do not believe that politicians grasp the concept of sustained yield beyond their success in the next election.
I'm pleased to read that the measure failed.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs