08-03-2013, 12:49 AM
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Each of the 5 Regional Advisory Councils (RAC’s) consists of a minimum of 12 members and a maximum of 15. The minimum 12 consist of two members who represent agriculture; two members who represent sportsman; two members who represent non-consumptive wildlife; one member who represents locally elected public officials; one member who represents the U.S. Forest Service; one member who represents the Bureau of Land Management; one member who represents Native Americans where appropriate; and two members of the public at large who represent the interests of the region. The executive director of the Department of Natural Resources, in consultation with the director of the Division of Wildlife Resources, shall appoint additional members to the councils, up to a total of 15 per region, if deemed necessary to provide adequate representation of local interests and needs. So, just how many of those 12 to 15 members are you really convinced have fishing rights for the people as their number one priority?[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]It is very possible that the majority, if not ALL, of them actually have fished on a regular basis, but at least 10 of those 12 to 15 members have higher priorities than fishing rights based on which segment of the population they represent. That means that if fishing rights conflict with the interests they represent then fishing rights is going to take a hit. And it matters not if 100, 1000, or even 10000 people show up at a RAC. You may have the full support of the 2 sportsman’s representatives but if you don’t have the full support of at least a majority of the other 10 to 13 members then there is about a snowballs chance in Hell of a fishing issue getting a positive recommendation sent to the Wildlife Board. Life’s hard and then you die.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]And for those of you screaming for a meeting in SLC being told to attend the Wildlife Board in November; good luck with that. The Wildlife Boards purpose is to discuss and approve/disapprove those issues presented to it by the RAC’s. They do not want, they do not need, and they very probably do not care, about your input on any issue at this point. They might be generous and actually let you speak but you’d be speaking to a deaf ear.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]You may think that the Wildlife Board and the RAC’s are the sportsman’s best friends. Well, you’d be wrong in that assumption. It’s very plain to see that the deck is stacked against us with this obnoxious system and the main reason I have never attended or plan to attend any of the meetings. Go if you must, but do so with the understanding that this system was never meant to truly represent the interests of Utah’s sportsmen and women.[/#800000][/font]
[signature]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]It is very possible that the majority, if not ALL, of them actually have fished on a regular basis, but at least 10 of those 12 to 15 members have higher priorities than fishing rights based on which segment of the population they represent. That means that if fishing rights conflict with the interests they represent then fishing rights is going to take a hit. And it matters not if 100, 1000, or even 10000 people show up at a RAC. You may have the full support of the 2 sportsman’s representatives but if you don’t have the full support of at least a majority of the other 10 to 13 members then there is about a snowballs chance in Hell of a fishing issue getting a positive recommendation sent to the Wildlife Board. Life’s hard and then you die.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]And for those of you screaming for a meeting in SLC being told to attend the Wildlife Board in November; good luck with that. The Wildlife Boards purpose is to discuss and approve/disapprove those issues presented to it by the RAC’s. They do not want, they do not need, and they very probably do not care, about your input on any issue at this point. They might be generous and actually let you speak but you’d be speaking to a deaf ear.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]You may think that the Wildlife Board and the RAC’s are the sportsman’s best friends. Well, you’d be wrong in that assumption. It’s very plain to see that the deck is stacked against us with this obnoxious system and the main reason I have never attended or plan to attend any of the meetings. Go if you must, but do so with the understanding that this system was never meant to truly represent the interests of Utah’s sportsmen and women.[/#800000][/font]
[signature]