Greetings,
I will start off with a disclaimer. Backpacking into the back country and hauling out an Elk is on my bucket list. Never done it, much to learn, that's why I'm on this forum.
However, I thought I might be able to contribute another way.
Recently as an attorney, I've been working on a case having to do with regulations on public land. (I can't for 'ethics' rules, discuss the specifics of the particular case, however, this one isn't related directly to hunting or areas with elk)
What I was wondering if as a group, do people here get involved in the rule making process? The public has the right to comment and participate in any rule proposed by regulators.
I have some thoughts on how to achieve some goals with regard to making sure rules aren't one sided against hunters.
#1 - Be part of a larger group. Resources in the aggregate are much stronger. Much like the NRA. When a bureaucrat knows that you represent thousands and not just one angry person writing a letter. They are more likely to listen. it is much more difficult to fight a rule after it is approved than before.
#2 - Monitor the proposed rules sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. Make sure that you're not late to the dance. Once a rule is passed, it is extremely difficult to get it over turned, because deference is given to the rule making body.
#3 - gather scientific evidence that supports hunting. This makes a stronger argument to oppose bad rules, and attack them later if the rules are "arbitrary or capricious"
#4 - win the hearts and minds of those making the rules, it's a lot easier. For example, it is better and sometimes easier to convince a prosecutor my client was not guilty than to convince 12 idiots off the street during a trial.
Unfortunately, we have to play a political game if we want to take game.
Just some quick thoughts and stuff to chew on.
I will start off with a disclaimer. Backpacking into the back country and hauling out an Elk is on my bucket list. Never done it, much to learn, that's why I'm on this forum.
However, I thought I might be able to contribute another way.
Recently as an attorney, I've been working on a case having to do with regulations on public land. (I can't for 'ethics' rules, discuss the specifics of the particular case, however, this one isn't related directly to hunting or areas with elk)
What I was wondering if as a group, do people here get involved in the rule making process? The public has the right to comment and participate in any rule proposed by regulators.
I have some thoughts on how to achieve some goals with regard to making sure rules aren't one sided against hunters.
#1 - Be part of a larger group. Resources in the aggregate are much stronger. Much like the NRA. When a bureaucrat knows that you represent thousands and not just one angry person writing a letter. They are more likely to listen. it is much more difficult to fight a rule after it is approved than before.
#2 - Monitor the proposed rules sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. Make sure that you're not late to the dance. Once a rule is passed, it is extremely difficult to get it over turned, because deference is given to the rule making body.
#3 - gather scientific evidence that supports hunting. This makes a stronger argument to oppose bad rules, and attack them later if the rules are "arbitrary or capricious"
#4 - win the hearts and minds of those making the rules, it's a lot easier. For example, it is better and sometimes easier to convince a prosecutor my client was not guilty than to convince 12 idiots off the street during a trial.
Unfortunately, we have to play a political game if we want to take game.
Just some quick thoughts and stuff to chew on.
