I'm afraid that what you are proposing here is impossible as people can define "anti hunting or anti fishing beliefs" in a myriad of ways. For example, one person might argue that any harvesting of fish is an "anti fishing" practice, but would that same view be shared by very many of us? In my opinion, it is a trap to attempt to see things in black and white where there are often so many shades of gray.IceInTheVeins said:I think we need to have wildlife comission elections and also a "wildlife constitution" which states that no law can ever be passed that will directly infringe on the rights to fish and hunt, and that no one who holds anti hunting or anti fishing beliefs can ever be elected to the comission.
This "constitution" would basically ensure that very bad apples such as peta and others could never make their way onto the board.
What do you think about this? Any alternative ideas?
Having said that, I do not see a simple solution to the problems other than keeping all communication about how new regulations are decided as open as possible. All "research" should be subject to scrutiny and those of us who pay for fishing licenses should always have something to say about these decisions. Where most of the fisherman disagree with the policies, there should be some recourse to remove or replace commission representatives.
... just my $.02