|
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
In 1947, the Government of the State of North Carolina created a body of political appointees called the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Its original purpose, and still is now, was to regulate hunting for the hunters, not to protect our non-hunting citizens against the encroachment of an impending dangerous activity. Organization: From an organizational standpoint, the NCWRC and its sister organization, Marine Fisheries Division, are quite unique. The NCWRC is one of the few remaining, but not last, "receipt funded" (self-funded) organizations associated with the NC state government. They have, at last count, over $68,000,000 in the bank drawing interest. It is this fact alone that allows them to operate under the radar screen, and without the influence of, our elected government. The day to day operations of the organization is run by an Executive Director. This director is neither elected by the people of North Carolina nor is he/she appointed by an elected official. The NCWRC has an ongoing revenue of over $26 million (an older figure) annually. This NCWRC has a multi-million dollar endowment fund whose interest revenue adds handsomely (over $250,000 a month) to its annual revenue. Their Constituents: The NCWRC does NOT receive the majority of their operating funds from the general tax revenue fund of the NC government. The majority of its funds are by and from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, boating registrations, and other assorted permits and licenses. It does receive some additional funding from the federal government from the Pittman-Robeson Act and monetary receipts related to boating. However, the overwhelming vast majority of its funding is internally generated. This means that it is a self-funded organization that is not dependent on outside sources of income, like for instance, the state government and / or all its citizens through disbursements from the general revenue fund. 2% and maybe 3% of the citizens of NC purchase a hunting or fishing license. It is this small percentage of NC citizens (hunters and other "sportsmen", and "sportswomen") that directly support the NCWRC financially. This is why its primary purpose is to look out for those that support it. "Don't bite the hand that feeds you", sound familiar? We have all heard this before. When there is a conflict between hunters and the general public the NCWRC must take (or always has taken) the side of hunters over the non-hunters. The NCWRC is not interested in making the changes that NC needs for the future, because, they will not bite the hand... and you know the rest. If hunting was more restrictive, then the amount of people hunting would decrease, and this would reduce their revenue. What organization wants less money? None. Don't look for the NCWRC to become a voice for making NC a safer and more progressive place to hunt. Legally, from what was said at a WRC public hearing, it can't as NC law does not allow such regulation by the WRC. However, if it could, then dog hunting for deer (and bear) would be the first topic that would need addressing and that is the last thing that they or anybody else wants to address. This is for two reasons: first, dog hunting is such a political "hot potato" that nobody wants to get involved with, and second, a high percentage of their revenue is generated from the sale of hunting licenses to these type of hunters. Personally, I even wonder why it should be a "hot potato" after all when so few citizens purchase a hunting license. Is it because hunters complain so loudly when change is even mentioned that it makes it appear to elected officials that their numbers are greater than they actually are? "The NCWRC is not interested in making the changes that NC needs for the future...". Care to hear what those changes might be? Laws, Laws, Laws: In the back of the NC Regulations Digest, under the section of Local Laws, you will find the only laws on the books in NC that restrict hunting at all, other than season opening dates and areas. Most of the local laws enacted in NC fall under the classification of road hunting, and written permission, and deer hunting. Many North Carolina counties have hunting laws that are similar but are not identical. Any attempt to control, restrict, or legislate the act of hunting is left up to the local (county) level of government, and taken to the state level. Any law locally initiated and proposed is passed by the NC General Assembly as a Local Law which applies only to a particular county or a small group of counties only. When you have 50 (or more) different versions of a similar law, it creates situations for law violations when one travels into another county. It would be easier for the general public to understand and abide by a uniform statewide road hunting law, or a statewide trespassing control law, instead of 50 (or more) different variations of a similar law. Currently, the law of the land in North Carolina states that anyone can hunt on anyone's property if it is not posted against hunting. This automatically creates an incentive to remove POSTED signs. Tear down the sign and you are legal! This puts an added burden on the property owner to protect himself/herself against hunters. Why does the law put the privilege of hunting over the rights of a property owner!? Our laws against trespassing are so outdated that they actually invite trespassing to occur. Why not enact a statewide law requiring hunting on three types of land: public lands (game lands), property posted for hunting, and requiring written permission to hunt on the property of another. This would eliminate about 100 (more or less) different laws in North Carolina and replaced with one law. This is but one example of an outdated law related to hunting. There are many more. Public or Private Organization: Is the NCWRC a state agency or a private organization? Since the earliest days of the USA, our founding fathers understood the importance of a system of "checks and balances" in our democracy. This ensures responsibility and accountability and minimizes the opportunity for corruption and improper management. All organizations must be scrutinized. In an organizational structure such as this, where a state agency is given the level of autonomy that the NCWRC has, is there a managerial breakdown in accountability and responsibility within the agency? Has the NCWRC ever been out of control? Feel free to download the 1990 Auditor's Investigative Report on the NCWRC Division of Enforcement. In a scandal such as this, not all is reported nor do all the negative deeds make it to the surface of public awareness. If this isn't enough, take a look at this trial case summary. The tip of the iceberg only reveals 10% of its total size and usually when there is negative publicity the same is true in that only about 10% gets reported because of reprisals to the employees. Was this only the tip of the problem showing? This is enough to show that there is one division in the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Enforcement, that was way, way out of control. How could this have happened? Mis-management? Lack of supervision? Lack of accountability through "checks and balances"? As this is researched, one will find that not one of the WRC perpetrators in the 1990 Auditor's Investigative Report was terminated, which means that the same people which allowed this to occur remained in power! Let's see here, this same organization with questionable supervision and questionable checks and balances in its organization structure, has enforcement officers? Let me think this through. I don't mind them carrying guns, I wouldn't want to enforce anything to anyone that was carrying a gun themselves, but what I as a citizen have a problem understanding is why a NCWRC Wildlife Officer wears a badge. I understand that the NC General Statutes (law) (may) give them full arrest authority, but does the person wearing this badge represent and work for all the citizens of North Carolina or does he/she represent and work for only a very, very small percentage of the population? Is a North Carolina Wildlife Officer a state law enforcement officer or a security guard for a private individual/organization - the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission? The State of North Carolina does not need privately owned security guards. We need officers of the law that are directly linked to the people of this state by way of election or an appointment by an elected official. Only then can there be accountability and responsibility. Officers should answer to all of the people of this state and not to an organization that is anything less than a direct part of (versus loosely connected to) our state government, and its constituents the people of the State of North Carolina. The NCWRC was legislated into existence. Should it be legislated out of existence? In this person's opinion, "No", not necessarily, it serves an important function. But, if we need a separate police force just to supervise the actions of 3%, or less, of our population, then we need to throw away the hunting laws and replace them with a set of laws that addresses the needs of all citizens with safety being the primary concern, not the "typical" manner of hunting solely because it is perceived, presented, and marketed by the NCWRC as "traditional". Proposal: (Just 1) Enact true statewide hunting laws with an emphasis on safety first for ALL citizens. This act alone must and will be the first legislation to restrict Hunting in North Carolina. Keep the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Put the Wildlife Enforcement Division under the Department of Crime Patrol and Public Safety. This will free up several million dollars annually for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to work with and will help offset the loss of the Endowment Fund. Take the $65,000,000 (or so) in the Endowment Fund and put it into the general revenue fund. The state will enjoy a quick monetary windfall but would have to absorb the expense and control of the 200+ positions of the wildlife enforcement division. This realignment of the enforcement division would in effect give the NCWRC several million dollars a year (about $10 million, at current revenue levels?) in which to spend on things that our sporting public needs. This would also immediately instill responsibility and accountability within all its employees. This proposal would only be possible and worthwhile after our legislators and citizens understood that the work of a wildlife officer benefits everyone, not just the hunting and boating public. Let's not forget that they are the agency designated for boat patrol enforcement in North Carolina. Let's also not forget that, currently, taxpayers do not pay their salary. Proposal: (#2) Don't do anything. Allow North Carolina to be viewed as a state, with regards to hunting, which still allows hunting to continue in the same manner that it has for the past 100 years, knowing full well that the human population has increased exponentially while the land available to hunt has decreased just as dramatically. In my personal opinion, I do not specifically want any type of hunting to end. But, is there anything wrong with CONTROLLING it? One example, from an adjoining state, requires only organized and recognized hunting clubs to utilize dogs in the taking of deer and bear. These groups have to have a special permit that allows the use of dogs to hunt deer and bear. Why organized clubs? Because it takes at least two or three thousand acres to even be able to hunt a deer without the dogs crossing a property boundary. There are not many people that personally control or own that much property. It takes a group, a group that pools their resources and leases a tract of land for hunting. I mention the crossing of a boundary because nobody, except another dog hunter, wants or would allow a pack of hunting dogs running across their land. Remember, dog hunters are maybe 1% of our population. This is a most liberal estimate. This example also brings into focus and starts to address and question the balance between hunters/hunting and landowner/property rights. Which one does the law protect more, hunters or landowners? There are many other examples of how North Carolina's hunting activity is not controlled. Many laws that we do have are outdated and the act of hunting is controlled only by those that engage in the activity. The ones that do not participate do not have a voice, except their own. Proposal: (#3) Your turn. Speak Up. => Forums => Those Responsible for Change. It is time for you to speak up on this subject and let your voice be heard, if you care to. I don't have all the answers, nor will I pretend that I do. I have questions. When the right questions are asked then it becomes possible for "realization" (answers) to arise. There are far too many statements being made in our society and not enough questions. Others are starting to ask the same or similar questions. Is anyone with the power and responsibility to initiate change listening? The current conflicts regarding hunting will not be addressed solely through changes in the law. It will take the effort of our elected officials to look at an activity which many may not like or may not want to look at. They may have depended on others to be the "caretaker" of just such an activity. But it must be done by them and no one else. It is their responsibility to know what is going on and the issues facing their constituents. If I were responsible, I would want firsthand knowledge, not secondhand information from an agency that looks out for such a small percentage of our population. It also must be the hunters themselves, looking at their actions and seeing how it portrays everyone who is placed into the group of "hunters" solely because they like to shop in natures grocery store, the way that it has been done for thousands of years. The "manner of hunting" and the use of dogs is not traditional. It is hunting that is traditional. Still hunting was popular at least a few centuries before dog hunting ever came into being.
(I doubt that Native Americans used dogs to hunt with a bow and arrow.)
The manner of hunting is and will be constantly changing. The short term change that the sport of hunting needs now could be sped up with the aid of legislation. The long term change? Well, what do you want hunting to be in 10, 20, or 30 years? Some say that the only hunting available in 20 years will be in commercial hunting pens. I hope not. I think the only money to be made commercially in the hunting industry will be in pens. I hope that hunting as I know it will be around for many years to come. If this is to become a reality, then changes must be made now, short and long term changes. Currently, this process has not started, yet. |
Content received from: North Carolina Wildlife :: Hunting and Fishing News, Forums, Photo Gallery, http://ncwildlife.info