If a sportsman has an idea and wants to make a change on a hunting issue, what is the procedure? If it is an item that requires action, it must be presented to a county advisory board to manage wildlife (CABMW) three days prior to the meeting. If it is put on the CABMW agenda, it will be thoroughly discussed and voted upon.

If the item is approved, it now goes to the Wildlife Commission where the same procedure of discussion and voting occurs. This procedure sounds great, that is, government working through public input. Nothing could be further from the truth!

For the most part, county advisory boards are listening to the public and the public’s participation is taken seriously. Clark County is the exception to this. For the most part it doesn’t do any good to attend the Clark County meetings. To prove this, there are over one and a half million people in the county. Their meetings are lucky to have more than a dozen people in attendance. Most of the older hunters realize it is a waste of time and for that reason, they don’t attend anymore.

Let’s assume your good idea does make it to the Wildlife Commission.

Now what happens? Basically, nothing. Oh, sure. They will go through the motions like they really care, but the truth is they have discussed the issue prior to the meeting and they already know the outcome. This is normal procedure for them.

Because there is no accountability for Wildlife commissioners they can do whatever they want. In reality, they do whatever NDOW director Terry Crawforth wants. Unlike an elected official, if you don’t like their actions, there is absolutely no recourse for you. That’s why the system doesn’t work.

Realizing that going to a Wildlife Commission meeting is a waste of time, sportsmen have bypassed this ineffective system knowing that taking the issue to the legislature to make changes will be more fruitful. To show how arrogant the Wildlife Commission is, “Commissioner Chris Mackenzie said at the May, 2005 Commission meeting that many bills brought forth in the Legislature bypassed the CABMW system and we all had to spend a lot of time on them. He said for the next session in 2007 we need to think about forging relationships with legislators to prevent that from happening again and to minimize the time spent on opposing those types of bills.” (Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners Meeting Minutes, May 13 and 14, 2005)

Oh, Commissioner Mackenzie, it appears that if it is not your idea, then it is not a good idea. You are supposed to represent sportsmen but like the other sportsmen’s representatives, you don’t. Maybe you should have done a little homework before you were appointed to the Commission. It was sportsmen who went to the legislature to increase the number of sportsmen from two to five on the Commission. If it were not for these sportsmen, in all probability you wouldn’t be on the Commission today. It was sportsmen who went to the legislature to take the big game out of NDOW’s control. I guess you must have approved the corrupt way NDOW was doing the draw. You and the other commissioners have let your appointments to the Commission go to your heads. You need to come back down to earth. You were not appointed to the Supreme Court and you were certainly not appointed because of your wildlife knowledge. You and the other so-called sportsmen’s representatives need to start doing your job instead of patting each other on the back on a regular basis.

You were part of the Wildlife Commission legislative committee who prepared thirteen pages of new rules and regulations to harass sportsmen. Some of the ideas you approved of were a game warden having the power to search a home without a warrant. You also felt that if a hunter “disobeyed” a biologist, the sportsman should be cited or arrested. By the way, Commissioner Mackenzie, what was in your proposal to enhance game? The answer is absolutely nothing! And you and your fellow commissioners wonder why sportsmen are not taking their proposals to the county advisory boards to manage wildlife. The five commissioners who are supposed to represent sportsmen should be representing the anti-hunting segment of the population.

One of the bills you disapproved was a bill to audit NDOW. It is apparent as a sportsmen’s representative, you don’t care how sportsmen’s
funding is being spent. By the way, 97 percent of NDOW’s funding comes from sportsmen.

Another good bill you disapproved of was a different way to choose the Wildlife commissioners. This would have eliminated people who have not done a good job of representing sportsmen, like you, Bill Bradley, Clint Bentley, Tommy Ford and others from being appointed to the Wildlife Commission. Now that’s a great bill.