In other words: Without that pesky commission to represent the public, we could elect a governor who shares our animal-rights views and have him dictate, top-down through wildlife employees that serve at his will and pleasure, exactly which species people would be allowed to hunt - if they were allowed to hunt at all.
Nevada isn't the only place where anti-hunting activists are seeking to co-opt or eliminate state wildlife commissions. In California and some other states, animal-rightists have succeeded in altering commission's makeup and personnel to suit their agenda.
Voltz's second tactic was revealed when he argued that visitors to the state's Spring Mountains National Wildlife Area, Mt. Charleston Wilderness and Red Rocks Canyon National Conservation Area are somehow in danger because hunting and trapping take place there.
"Extensive hunting and trapping regularly occur despite the ongoing threat to public safety of hidden traps and armed people killing unarmed wildlife and companion animals," Voltz wrote.
Never mind that the 2 million visitors to those areas are spread throughout 569,261 acres. That's roughly four visitors per acre per year, roughly the same visitor rate as West Virginia's Monongahela National Forest, where hunting and trapping have taken place for decades with no harm to the public from "hidden traps" or "armed people killing unarmed wildlife."
In writing what he wrote, Voltz hopes to create a perception that hunting and trapping somehow constitute a threat to public safety, when there's virtually no evidence it does.
Voltz's final tactic was a proverbial shot over the bow. He wrote that hunters and trappers "pay no severance compensation when permanently destroying the public's wildlife, a valuable natural resource akin to gold, silver, oil or natural gas. Such compensation is overdue and appropriate given the extent of damage inflicted."
So now the animal rightists want a severance tax on wildlife, huh?
Thanks for the warning, Fred.