Hickenlooper Planning To Plunder DOW Funds?

From the article, a few of the State Parks slated for closure would become State Wildlife Areas and would indeed be allowed to be funded by DOW $$$$. I am not too excited about this plan. The devil is in the details.

Gov. Hickenlooper proposes merging parks, wildlife agencies
http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_17569738

Willoughby: Division merger raises queries
http://www.denverpost.com/willoughby/ci_17569412

thanks for the links photo-fish. it really is hard to say until there is more detail. i don't want to see parks usurp dow funding. i wouldn't mind seeing a few state parks stop being state parks and become wildlife habitat only. of course i might regret that if it pushes more people into the national forests with less supervision and pushes out the wildlife.

If you have one state park employee patrolling multiple parks looking to make sure that everyone has a camping sticker and separate DOW employee patrolling multiple reservoirs located within the state parks looking to make sure the fishing laws are being followed, we might be better off with a single employee at Spinney and another one at Eleven Mile that are looking for both at the same time than we are with two who can only spend part of their time in both locations.
I can see the point you are trying to make Bear, and I agree with some of it, but I don't agree that the two are mutually exclusive, though they certainly can be. In order to have herds of big game to be managed, their habitat must be preserved to a certain degree or the herds will not find suitable habitat in which to live. That is why I qualified it as I did. If the management is structured such that the DOW mission is that which governs the operations, there could be some benefit realized by having the public campgrounds and parks overseen by an entity whose primary outlook is the responsible management of the fisheries and habitat contained within the park. If you have one state park employee patrolling multiple parks looking to make sure that everyone has a camping sticker and separate DOW employee patrolling multiple reservoirs located within the state parks looking to make sure the fishing laws are being followed, we might be better off with a single employee at Spinney and another one at Eleven Mile that are looking for both at the same time than we are with two who can only spend part of their time in both locations.

I would not want to see the job of a DOW officer diluted with those duties of a park. The DOW manages wildlife, and the parks staff do somthing totally different.

Preservation is the mantra of the tree hugger and animal rights activist. There are special interest groups such as these who advocate NO HUNTING at all.

Preservation is what we have in places like Rocky Mountain National Park. The wildlife population in that park are not allowed to be managed, and have populated in numbers that now cause problems. Food shortages and Cronic wasting disease are prevalent there. The way a preservationist manages this problem - is by feeding the elk. This is what preservation has brought us.

Ironically - RMNP has had to take the drastic measure in recent years and allow hunting on a limited basis - just to keep the animals from starving to death - and keep Cronic wasting disease from spreading like wildfire.

The way the DOW would handle the problem is by hunting the elk. The management tool of issuing a limited number of hunting licenses reduces the population to healthy numbers. The preservationist will argue that the land should be open to hikers and climbers - and closed to hunting and fishing.

I hope you can see why mixing the two in a single entity is a bad idea. Do you really want the people from PITA to get access to the money we pay for fishing and hunting licenses? I don't.

There are groups of people who claim to be interested in wildlife - but contribute nothing. Among these are groups like PITA. Pita - with all their lip service, have not contributed a single dollar to this cause - DOW funds manage wildlife in Colorado.

These interests are 180 degree polar opposites of each other. If Hickenlooper wants to convert preservation areas like parks to wildlife habitat and open it up to good management - this can be done without mixing the two together. Simply designate those preservation areas which are underfunded to the DOW - where the funds exist for proper management.

I assure you - the first time some gronola munching hippie from Boulder hears a rifle shot while on his nature hike - the crap is gonna hit the fan.

I am including a quote from Wikipedia on the definition between preservation and conservation just in case I have not defined it well with my own words - but this mixing of completely different functions is just a crappy idea in my mind.

A preservationist generally refers to one who wishes to preserve a historic structure from demolition or degradation. It generally refers to a particular historical behavior or belief system. Example areas are cultural, religious, architectural and environmental.

Persons who work to preserve ancient or endangered languages are also referred to as language preservationists.

It is sometimes used in the natural environmentalist field. While the natural environment conservationist movements do wish to preserve ecosystems and the natural environment, this movement is best described as conservation or environmentalism rather than preservation. Though in casual discussion these terms could get confused, it would be better to recognize their differences and correctly distinguish between a conservationists and preservationists in the field of environmentalism.

A key difference between the Preservationist and Conservationist environmentalist schools of thought is their view of the use of environmental resources. In summary, the Preservationist view is that the environment has an intrinsic value; that is, the environment has value solely in itself. Therefore the name "preservationist" is explaining the goal to preserve the environment in its past form, making as little change as possible.

Conservationists, however, view the environment with an instrumental value. While conservationists are to be considered "environmentally friendly", they do not have the same "let it be" view as preservationists do. Instead, they look at the environment for what it can do for people.

A key concept is that conservationists generally accept the notion of sustainable yield—that man can harvest some forest or animal products from a natural environment on a regular basis without compromising the long-health of the ecosystem. This theory was presented by forester Gifford Pinchot. Natural Environmental Preservationists usually oppose resource extraction.

Update 4/1/11

Parks-wildlife bill clears panel

The measure, which would combine State Parks and the Division of Wildlife, has plenty of adversaries.

A proposal to merge the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Colorado State Parks into a single entity overcame its first hurdle Thursday when the Agriculture Committee voted unanimously to advance the measure to the full Senate.

Co-sponsored by Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, Senate Bill 208 passed despite opposing testimony from multiple sportsmen's groups such as the Colorado Wildlife Federation and Colorado Trout Unlimited.

Some former DOW employees raised concerns over the timing of the merger, requesting the bill be withdrawn until further study is conducted to pinpoint budget efficiencies promised by its architects and supporters, notably Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper.

"The speed at which this merger is being implemented is mind-boggling," retired DOW director Bruce McCloskey told the commission. "Based on my experience with numerous reorganizations, those that move too quickly go the slowest."

Proponents countered that the plan to unite the two agencies as the State Parks and Wildlife Agency under the Department of Natural Resources umbrella is inherently sound, providing a streamlined operation that will only improve as details emerge over the next year.

"It really is a matter of style, and we felt a bold move kicking this off was the right way to do it, rather than sitting around and having a talk for a year while daylight is wasting and the budget is sliding in the wrong direction," DNR director Mike King said.

Currently, DOW is more than twice the size of the fiscally struggling State Parks division in terms of both budget and personnel. If approved, the measure will temporarily merge the existing nine-member Wildlife Commission with the five-member State Parks Board and create a new director position overseeing the agency.

A second bill detailing the structure of the new agency is expected to come before the legislature in 2012.

In addition to the rapid pace of the legislation, the bill's adversaries repeated concerns over potential diversion of wildlife funds and a failed merger of the two agencies that dissolved after nine years in 1972.

"They're right. We should learn from what's been done in the past. Not only that, but we need to reach out to other states that have this model and ask what worked, what didn't and what would you do differently next time," King said.

"We've laid out a framework where the public involvement will now kick in in earnest."

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17747865

towermonkey wrote:

Martin Ent Inc wrote: And closing several State Parks as well. What a guy.

Yes, he should close more schools and fire more teachers instead....

Hey knucklehead, that's a district decision not state....

Holy crap, the last thing we need is DOW enforcement agents working with the Parks division.... DOW enforcement agent have no oversight.