"An elected official looks at writing, signing on or sponsoring legislation in an order. Most of us give each point in that list a numerical weight from 1-5. For example, usually the first question is, does this bill do good for my constituents? I give it a 3. Then, does this bill go along with my party lines? Then, will this bill be popular with my constituents? Then, is there a trade value-can I trade this for favors? etc..."
He went down the whole list with me and I cannot remember how many "points" he considered but he then said the numerical weights were added and must come out an average of three. In other words, let's say there were eight things to consider. The total "weight" must be 24 for him to consider the bill. Not once was the bill in question regarded as good or bad legislation...at least far as I could tell. And I know, not once was there a consideration of how much it would cost.
Now. Here is what I am getting at. Were sportsmen and women to actually unite, from a united front to start a grass roots, ground swell to pass a bill that would make it illegal to introduce legislation banning hunting, that bill would be couched in so much political verbiage, few legislators would have any idea what they were voting on. A simple, one paragraph statement would end up being 30-pages long. Therefore, it would have to be written by a legislator. That would require a "friendly" in our camp to write it.
The chances of such a bill are much better in states where a great deal of livestock industry exists because the bill would have to be snuck in on the coat tails of other seeming harmless legislation. And in all likelihood, it would need to be enacted in one state first, then spread, using that state precedence. Now. Why is such a bill important?
First, once such a bill became law, it would have to be repealed before any "contrasting" legislation could be introduced. That is not an easy thing to do. The states that have a "right to hunt" law do not have a law preventing the outlawing of hunting. That is a misconception. That law grants us the right to hunt. But if hunting were illegal, that right to hunt is useless.
I am no lawyer nor am I an elected official. However, I do somewhat understand how political wranglings work. To get honey, you must first have bees. It is simple, back scratching. "If you will support this, I will support that." So there must be a "trade" value. At no point does common sense, cost or loss, or biological reasoning enter into it.
Tomorrow, strangely enough, I am having lunch in another county with a man running for a state, elected position. I suspect he wants the support of the hunters and fishermen in this district. I'll bounce this off him and see what he says.
For a guy always moaning about xbows, doubly hypocritical. Be careful wishing for scientific management. Outside of select urban areas, bow season, muzzleloader, none of that special interest stuff has to exist. Pure cold-hearted management of wildlife would be any weapon seasons, only to the extent of managing the population. No draw tags managed for trophy quality either. And scientific management makes a pretty solid basis for effectively arguing we need large predators to control prey numbers too.
They only look at legislation pro/con as to the impact number of votes
Politicians can be good people in a 1:1 conversation, but when they get together, "herd mentality" overrides any and all common sense.
Sadly money talks- thats why lobbyists are effective agents
I had to work with politicians from the local to the national level. Even though I'm retired, I still know several on all different levels and I never did nor do I now trust any of them. They remind me of house cats- as long as you feed them, they will rub on your leg and pretend to love you. Quit feeding them and they will disappear.
