ORIGINAL: the outsider
ORIGINAL: DennyF
So I'm hearing two stories here. One story has a BOC member in a position to benefit from inclusion and the other does not. Which one is true?
You'll likely "hear" lots of stories here. Some folks are alsobig on mountain lions, so the occasional phantom tale about commissioners and PGC employees, always find a willing ear.
All I did was relate what I know about each BOC member. Haven't been able to spot the one that's supposedly in the position to personally profit from xbow inclusion yet.
This kinda brings me back to my questions regarding inclusion and gaining a better understanding about the process and decision making.How many hunters expressed their views (for and against) to the BOC? 100? 1,000? 10,000?
This is what 2 of the Commissioners felt on the day of the vote for inclusion: Actual minutes from the meeting.
Commissioner Weaner:
My vote on the crossbow issue will be no:
Felt overwhelmingly hunters were opposed to them.
Felt it was foolish to upset the majority of PA hunters.
He felt there would not be the big recruitment as many proclaimed.
Just saw no up side for inclusion.
Commissioner Boop:
I intend to vote no.
Stated that for two years he was the President of the BOC. In that position he controlled the dissemination of information to the BOC. In that time he never saw crossbows on the radar.
In June of last year one commissioner suggested we look at it. Seven months later here we are on a final vote to approve it.
The BOC has always moved slow. Slow and methodical on bear archery, deer management, and other seasons and initiatives (he had a long list).
Why the rush on this??
He stated, every commissioner got 500 to a 1000 emails and letters on this issue. The urban areas more on the high side. In his emails, it went 90/10. 90% opposed inclusion. He was hearing the same from other commissioners.
He agreed with Commissioner Weaner, that the BOC was going to annoy hunters and harm the six week archery season.
He suggested that it was legislative interference and threats driving this vote. Mentioned that regardless of the vote by the BOC, members of the legislature have indicated they would introduce bills to stop inclusion, or mandate inclusion. Legislative interference is the last thing we (hunters) need.
Suggested options for, and types of info needed to be studied. Stated that if this is such a good proposal now, it will still be a good proposal in 2010. Lets do due diligence on this and not rush.
He noted that the BOC is changing. There will be three new commissioners on board by next year. They will need to deal with the fallout of this decision. Doesn't seem fair.
Vote this down, or table it and do the due diligence.
Commissioner Boop then made a formal amendment proposal to table the agenda item.
Amendment failed 3-4
Yeahs: Boop, Weaner, Delaney