It’s no surprise that Monday’s Senate’s rebuke of GOP Gov. Butch Otter’s Fish & Game Commissioner Joan Hurlock included a hint of the urban-rural divisions that have long defined Idaho politics.
Of the nine Republicans who supported Hurlock in a losing 19-16 vote, seven represent significant urban constituencies: Dan Johnson of Lewiston, Shawn Keough of Sandpoint, Todd Lakey of Nampa, Patti Anne Lodge of Huston (Canyon County), Fred Martin of Boise, Jim Patrick of Twin Falls and Jim Rice of Caldwell. (Keough, it should be noted, represents a largely rural district, but Sandpoint is a fashionable resort and retirement city.)
They backed their governor’s appointee, despite her casual relationship with hunting and fishing.
Lodge made what some might see as a dangerous admission: She’s given up hunting, and likes to see deer, quail, pheasants, ducks and geese roaming her land on Sunnyslope near the Snake River. She added a reminder for what she called the “great white hunters”: many citizens see critters as more than just meat.
“Remember, that wildlife belongs to all of Idaho,” Lodge said.
Said Patrick: “I think of her as a breath of fresh air in being a little different.”
Rice responded to Sen. Jeff Siddoway, R-Terreton, a leader of the anti-Hurlock faction, who argued Hurlock lacked the required “passion” for hunting to serve on the seven-member commission.
Rice described an acquaintance who is so passionate about hunting that a judge imposed a lifetime hunting ban because of the man’s repeated offenses. “That (passion) is not the basis upon which we appoint commissioners,” Rice said.
The two Republicans who supported Hurlock and represent largely rural districts were her floor manager, Bert Brackett of Rogerson, who ranches in Southern Idaho and Nevada, and John Tippets of Montpelier in the far Southeast corner of Idaho.
Nineteen of the Senate’s 28 Republicans voted against Hurlock.
This story is not about some great divide. It is clear Hurlock is not qualified to serve on the commission because she lacks any real experience hunting and fishing…therefore, she has no business representing the sportmen and women of this state. I also find it troubling that she donated $400 to Rex Rammell’s campaign in 2010. You remember Rammell…the guy who HATES IDFG (called them Nazis and threatened to dismantle the agency when he became Governor) and is a CONVICTED ELK POACHER. Bottom line, Hurlock has no business on the commission…there are plenty of avid hunters and anglers who are much more capable and deserving.
Stop trying to start a controversy over an “unqualified” candidate! People fail to get hired for jobs everyday because they are not qualified which has nothing to do with sexual or geographic discrimination.
Leave it to urban writers to invent a division in one political party or another.
Joan Hurlock had zero experience in wildlife, hunting, fishing, and habitat. She was chosen by Governor Otter because she had a passion to get the youth of Idaho into the outdoors, and not for her experience. The divide represented those members who line up in lockstep with the Governor and those members who used sound judgement to reject this nomination. That is the function of the process. Hurlock’s appointment was embarrassing to the people of Idaho, and should be an example for future appointments. The people of Idaho demand a person with experience and passion for hunting, not to mention a commissioner that will represent the hunting and fishing community. The Governors appointments to the Fish and Game Commission to date, represent the concurrent failure in wildlife management and policy. Idaho Fish and Game is in very deep trouble, and the Commission is the barrier between agenda driven wildlife management and sound wildlife management that fosters management practices to perpetuate wildlife for future hunters and anglers. Hurlock represented something unrecognizable to Idaho’s hunters and Anglers, and that is why the Governors appointment was defeated. The current commission and those who are appointed, should have a firm understanding and support for the mission of the department of Fish and Game, and should have a history proving their position. The balance on the commission has already been stacked with those who do not defend Idaho’s best interest, and we do not need any more.
“”She was chosen by Governor Otter because she had a passion to get the youth of Idaho into the outdoors”"”….I find this funny since she didn’t bother getting her OWN california kids outdoors.Now, all of a sudden, she is concerned about getting OUR kids outdoors??..I Think not! So glad she didn’t get confirmed!!!…We have had enough of the tofu terrorists trying to set policy in our great state…Go Idaho!
Very good point…how effective is she going to be at getting kids outdoors when she lacks the passion/drive herself??? I started off pretty neutral on this whole thing…but am now convinced Hurlock was a horrible choice. Please write your state senators who voted to block her nomination and thank them!!!
You know, I could care less if the director of Fish and Game doesn’t hunt. I would rather the agency be ran by a scientist than a hunter. If you don’t have habitat, you don’t have game, and then you don’t have hunters. Running the agency for hunters by hunters in the long term is the wrong goal. IDFG has shown that they don’t seem to understand this, with their insistance on wasting money on Access Yes and stocking pheasants.
I would rather a nonhunter scientist who has an active interest in wildlife management and habitat improvement run the IDFG over the current IDFG hacks. If IDFG won’t put habitat first, and waste a big part of its budget on access yes and stocking pheasants, then were in serious trouble.
The function of Idaho Fish and Game has no obligation or mandate to do anything with habitat. If you wish to focus on habitat, then I suggest you focus on the Forrest Service, and their anti logging agenda. Sixty five percent of Idaho is federally and State controlled, and neither of the two can do anything to improve habitat with the current agenda. Preservation biology is destroying Idaho.
As a former employee of the FS, I can tell you that is not true in the slightest. Not as much timber is being cut as the clearcutting days, but that has as much to do with litigation as it does the forest service itself. Both the BLM and FS do land treatments all the time.
If fish and game wants to spend all its money on fish hatcheries(which is where most of the money goes) then as winter ranges for mule deer and upland game habitit is converted to cheatgrass game populations are going to plummit, and hunter participation will plummit too. How many people stop hunting due to lack of success?
Dumping triploid trout into rivers and stocking pheasants is a collosal waste of money, as is the access yes program in a state that is 75% public land.
Take a look at the CJ stike WMA. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars stocking pheasants there every year, but the whole upland area of the WMA is being taken over by Russian Olive, invasive annuals, and Salt Cedar. Priorities?
You are correct to some extent, in that the FS is in litigation much of the time, and that is what has stopped habitat improvement. Prescriptive practices that is a one size fits all, is no way to manage the vast forests of the West. Litigation is a far left wing environmental agenda to reduce ungulate populations, and the FS biologists feed right into the litigation process.It is their science that is used to close down multiple use, and those biologist’s that consume the vast majority of the FS budget. I will say it again, Idaho Fish and Game has no mandate to manage habitat they have no control of. They are neither required by law or the people to manage habitat. That roll can only be filled by the FS or BLM.
Hire from within. We don’t need any faster California changes than are already in place. She couldn’t even hold onto her last job in California – wonder why?
Another reason to get liberal California transplants OUT of this state.
The real issue is the fact that most rural people in the Idaho legislature are of marginal education. This also shows in very embarrassing ways with the legislature’s treatment of teachers. I believe that its inentionally done in an attempt to preserve the economic imbalance between haves and have-not in this state. It is so very 17th century.
I am sorry but what a bunch of baloney.I live in a very rural area and the majority of my neighbors are college graduates or better.
It sounds like she was not going to be a good fit for Idaho hunters and anglers. While anyone who hunts enjoys seeing game in the off season and supports good management she did not sound like she had the interests of actual hunters at heart. I am confused why the letters saying Access Yes and the pheasant stocking program are money wasted? I have not hunted any Access properties but often take my kids and others to the WMA for pheasant, dove and quail. I have found very few private landowners willing to let us hunt even after offering to provide names address and willingness to post a “bond” for anything the landowner says we broke etc.. We are losing young hunters every year. Anything we can do to keep them in the field with a good chance at success can only help us all in the long run. The WMA’s seem to provide that for many hunters. Plus getting to watch a dog work birds and a kid getting a few is worth the trip, gas and tag money! Have a great day and a good hunt.
As for why stocking pheasants is a bad idea: http://www.pheasantsforever.org/page/1/stocking.jsp
The problem with Acess Yes! isn’t the idea, its the implementation. Many of the properties are too small, or don’t have good populations of animals that the landowners allow you to hunt. The Lord Ranch tract was a great example, there was a huge amount of land,and most most of it was only open to Elk hunting in a draw only unit.
I wonder if Californians realize how much the average Idahoan distrusts and dislikes them? Not them personally but for bringing eco-animal rights terrorist groups like peta and alf to Idaho.