| Show Wildlife Damage Prevention Act Dear Editor Having examined proposed legislation for the 1975 legislature relative to enactment of the proposed Agricultural and Wildlife Damage Prevention Act the Vernal Rod and Gun Club representing some sportsmen in the Uintah Basin does not feel it can support an act of tl this s character which gives broad general authority to toan toan toan an agency which in our opinion has been sympathetic non-sympathetic to many of our wildlife issues Consumptive as well as non- non consumptive users of the states state's wildlife resources should become thoroughly acquainted with this proposed act and voice their disapproval of the Act to their State Senators and Representatives The intent of the proposed act conflicts with existing state laws and in many ways appears to be a means means to gain a powerful on control of the states state's wildlife resources as they pertain to agricultural interests We are in sympathy with the agricultural interests and their needs for protection of their livelihood We are knowledgeable of existing laws that protect their interest and although minimal they do receive assistance and some compensation for losses to their livelihood acts of God ex- ex We are supportive non-supportive of overt acts which appear detrimental to the best interests of the states state's wildlife resources and the people of the State of Utah We share in many situations common interests as we believe most people in the agricultural profession are also sportsmen who h hunt nt and fish or enjoy some aspect of the states state's wildlife resources However with the compounded problems the state is now facing we 0 cannot support enactment of this proposed act which is indirect in indirect indirect direct conflict with authority already vested with the be Division of Wildlife Resources The provisions of th ifie proposed act are of great concern to members of the Vernal Rod and Gun Club and should be to all sportsmen of the state The proposed act in its initial statement in Section 2 and again in Section 6 provides authority to the proposed Board and the C Commissioner of Agriculture wl which ch by statutory law is legally vested in the states state's Division of Wildlife Resources to wit The Division of Wildlife Resources shall be bethe bethe bethe the wildlife authority for the State of Utah the Division of Wildlife Resources shall have havethe havethe havethe the power and be charged with the duty to protect propagate manage conserve and distribute protected wildlife throughout the state 23 14 Wildlife Resources Code of Utah The composition of the proposed 13 member board The Agricultural and Wildlife Damage Prevention Board presents a gross inequity and injustice to the sportsmen of the state Sportsmen essentially are represented entirely by the Division of Wildlife Resources The agricultural and livestock interests are represented by eight appointees in addition to the Commissioner of Agriculture who is also the chairman n. n A quorum for the transaction of business requires only seven members of the board be present This represents an obvious inequity to the sportsmen and a selfish interest to say the least By definition game as well as non-game non can be declared as at the discretion of the proposed board Tl This s obviously provides the means whereby any animal domestic wildlife or otherwise upon another persons person's property can be declared a predator by the board and they in turn can prescribe the means by which the animals can be removed and in addition pay compensation in the form of a bounty M The proposed act by provision directs the Division of Wildlife Resources to include as part of its annual budget an amount of funds equal to 25 percent of the tax revenue collected under the act during the previous fiscal year This tells us that in addition addition addition ad ad- to divesting the sportsmens sportsmen's custodian and trustees of statutory authority we are also being given a mandate to to fund on a sliding scale ap apportion of the proposed act In conclusion we consider the proposed act contrary to the best interests of the citizens of the State of Utah We feel that the proposed act duplicates an expenditure of public funds to instigate ways and means of satisfying selfish interests purview to the proposals of the act The sportsmen are now represented by people with capabilities expertise and statutory regulations s to manage the wildlife resources Therefore we feel any program predator or otherwise involving wildlife resources resources rightfully belongs with guidance from the states state's legislature within the states state's Division of Wildlife Resources Sincerely yours BEN M. M BRIDGES President |
