WRC made right calls on 2009-10 proposals

There’s definitely something to be said for democracy — or a democratic republic.During January and February, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission’s 19 appointed members studied almost 40,000 in-person and e-mail responses to proposed game-and-fish regulation changes for 2009-2010. And the commissioners voted accordingly March 4, although one decision was knife-edge close for a proposal that had met almost universal opposition from sportsmen.

So deer and wild turkey will be safe from increased harvest pressure the next hunting season. And the N.C. Wild Turkey Federation, WRC biologists and Quality Deer Management members and white-tailed deer and turkey hunters interested in rational wildlife management breathed sighs of relief.

Although the WRC proposed 83 changes to its fishing, trapping and hunting laws for 2009-10, six drew the lion’s share of interest. And to hear chairman Wes Seegars tell it, he and 18 commissioners felt like they’d been put in a phone booth with a cougar in the run-up to the March 4 vote.

Well, OK.

Someone said people who live in a democracy never should observe how laws are produced because it’s like watching how sausage is made — you know, a little of this, a little of that, and everything gets run through a meat-grinder to get the final result. A democracy/republic is messy — but it should be. Only Mussolini made the trains run on time.

After the final vote, Seegars addressed commissioners and guests. He lamented how difficult the process had been and said he wanted more openness in the future because of troubles caused by the spread of misinformation. Oddly, Seegars said problems may have been caused by the kind of communication he said he wanted in the future (more openness). He’d earlier said involving the WRC’s “conservation partners” (NWTF, QDMA, NCBA) might have been a “mistake.” He said some of those folks spread incomplete information about early-stage proposals, which fired up N.C. sportsmen, but he blamed himself and the commissioners.

“We’re going to fix that,” he said.

Two things about that statement: (a) it makes us a little uneasy because the chairman seems uncomfortable at the heat generated by opposing viewpoints (which is inevitable with important topics) and (b) we don’t know exactly what’s meant by “fixing it.” Coupled with a statement about mistakes by groups with whom he wants cooperation, we wonder if the fix could be less involvement with these “partners.”

We hope that’s not the case.

Bottom line? The process probably could have been less of a meat-grinder if the commissioners had followed recommendations of their biologists. Certainly they knew of staff proposals. And their e-mails and phone calls should have let them know N.C.’s sportsmen were upset.

We’re just glad the commissioners saw the light on March 4.