Except for the three minority votes, the August 26, 2009, meeting of the Placer County Fish and Game Commission (F&G) was the epitome of how a small group of appointees can dupe the public, railroad a recommendation through an approval process without justification, and then berate the public as being “irresponsible” with their opposition to a shabby proposal that has no merit.

With chameleon-like antics, Commissioner Gary Flanagan (in lock step with Supervisor Kirk Uhler) started a “special” hunt idea at F&G’s May 27, 2009 meeting. He wanted a vote on a nebulous agenda recommendation “supporting a special deer hunt in the Loomis/Granite Bay area,” with no explanation or presentation of his plan. However, he did not count on citizens being in the audience, demanding to know details of the recommendation. Flanagan stumbled all over himself. He first tried to justify his special hunt by citing deer auto collision increases (using Uhler’s anecdotal supposed witnessing of deer auto collisions), but with no data, he threw in “cruelty of deer death from starving and wasting away” (again with no statistics), hoping that something, ANYthing, would stick.

He said it would be a junior hunt, 12 to 16 years olds. During the F&G discussion, it was stated that the kids “did not need to be licensed” (that bit of information was repeated later by citizens who thought the F&G commissioners knew hunt regulations). When safety concerns were raised, Flanagan tried to move from high powered firearms to a “bow hunt.” One of his colleagues muttered, “I’d never vote for a bow hunt.”

However, at that May meeting, after all Flanagan’s unsubstantiated claims were rebuked by citizens, F&G voted unanimously to request staff to bring back statistics on deer-vehicle collisions in the target area and comparisons with nearby areas.

At the following meeting, June 24, the F&G Commission used a staff report that erroneously cited Calif Highway Patrol (CHP) statistics as “deer” vehicle collisions, when, in fact, the CHP reports clearly stipulate only “animal” vehicle collisions—which could be dog, livestock, and/or other wildlife as well as deer. To add to the incorrect data, Animal Control deer carcass removal records were cited, with claims of “dramatic increases” from 2006 to 2007 and 2008. However, 2006, Animal Control’s base year, was only a partial year due to installation of a new computer system and abandonment or unintentional loss of previous records. Armed with false information, the F&G Commission voted (5 to 1) to proceed in requesting that state Dept of Fish and Game (DFG) survey the situation and come back with a recommendation.

At the August 26, 2009 meeting, after hearing public comments, Flanagan, in a desperate grasp for straws, reproached the public by asking how many of them had been on the website to look up parcel maps and ownership. His tactic now was to show the private parcels that might be used for the hunt might be adjacent, with common ownership, and thus provide larger hunt areas. His point was to try to prove that some of the acreage was “in excess of 500 acres,” implying it was then safe, and blaming the audience for not looking up parcel sizes. Somehow he missed the point that most of the audience reside in the target area and probably know their backyards better than he does. Or did he already have landowners lined up for the SHARE Program pay out?

One of his greatest transgressions was his petty and vindictive accusation of the public for being, as he repeated many times, “irresponsible,” for their statements that the plan had “morphed” into its current recommendations. His own initial plan had indeed “morphed,” but he insisted that it had “evolved.” He did his utmost to hoodwink the public into thinking he is a thoughtful, intelligent listener and to divert them from the issues of public safety.

However, the truth is that his dirty little “special” hunt, the proposal he tried to sneak in under the public’s radar, was doomed from the start. He and Uhler backpedaled as furiously as they could to stave off public outrage. Flanagan also neglected to say that he had met with Folsom State Park and Recreation officials to try to have the hunt approved there also—the rebuff and denial of his request by park officials could not have been stronger. Maybe in Flanagan’s myopic world, Folsom State Park does not have a multitude of hikers, bikers, and equestrians at all hours of the day who would be put at risk with hunting there.

He admonished the public by saying it was irresponsible to make emotion-based decisions, that the professionals could do the job. We’ve got news for him: His so-called professionals have conflicts of interest, are using incorrect data, and as long as potential corruption and “cooking the books” is evident, it is the public’s responsibility to police its errant public officials and now, more than ever, scrutinize every proposal.

Flanagan ended his diatribe with something “sticking in my craw.” After claiming how much F&G had changed and adapted to the public, he accused the public of now turning it around and trying to use it “against us.” He essentially said that they (F&G) deserved kudos for not coming out the day after hearing about it and making a decision without all the facts. Apparently, Flanagan didn’t realize it was his own plan he was hearing about (?); he did indeed try to make a sneaky decision on that first fateful hearing in May, but was shot down. If he thinks he has the right, as he implied with his words, to “make a decision without hearing all the facts,” then the Placer County Board of Supervisors should exercise their authority and remove this obviously unfit-for-public-service commissioner.

Ah, but the ship of fools had not sailed yet....

Along came Commissioner Don Gould, with words that defy description in hitting new lows for intelligence. He professed disdain for premises that start on an untruth, and when “you get to the back end, the very end, it’s still going to be an untruth.” Yet, he himself voted on false premises: statistics from the CHP where words had been changed (from “animal” to “deer”) and Animal Control figures based on partial base-year comparisons to full years. Apparently, false premises are the bane of everyone else, but they work for Gould and his ilk.

He further demonstrated a lack of understanding of the issue by stating, “I thought this proposed hunt, no problem. All we’re going to do is expand a couple of licenses, the hunt already happens.” He must have forgotten that the hunt was not only expanded (kill quota expanded from 25 to 75) but also modified. That meant that instead of 12 to 16 year olds maiming, wounding, and killing just does and bucks, now ONLY “antlerless” deer (essentially fawns, does, and young males with antlers less than 3 inches) would be the legal targets.

The three commissioners (Freidig, Fowler, and Haswell) who take seriously their mandate to protect and preserve wildlife and natural resources in the public trust are to be commended. They are not opposed to hunting at all, but to justify the proposed modifications and expansions, their requests for statistics were reasonable and rational. Haswell remarked that the SHARE program, if utilized the way it was intended (habitat restoration, hiking, recreation, and hunting), could be a good program. However, as he pointed out, to pilot a big game SHARE hunt in an urban-residential setting where the DFG biologist repeated more than once is “challenging,” may not be a formula for success.

Another issue is using taxpayer money to pay up to $30 per acre to landowners to allow hunter access on their private properties. A 500-acre parcel—that Flanagan mentioned—will reap $15,000 for a landowner for a few weeks out of the year. SHARE promoters claimed that no taxpayer money is being used, but they also noted that the program is partially funded by federal and state grants, which indeed means tax dollars.

There is some good to come out of this debacle. It has made the public painfully aware of the county’s little-known Fish ad Game Commission that makes critical decisions regarding our wildlife with no public recourse or remedy. It has exposed at least one supervisor and some commissioners for the kind of self-serving people they are. It has exposed the pitfalls of taxpayer-funded programs (SHARE) that are possibly being high jacked to benefit large landowners. And it reminds us that our local county government needs continuous, careful scrutiny.

We are thankful to Citizens United to Can the Contrived Hunt. Without their many months of diligent watchdog work, the bogus deer hunt never would have been exposed for what it is. Maiming, wounding, and killing “antlerless” deer with lethal weapons, including bows and arrows (that have a 50% or more wounding rate), by 12 to 16 year olds may be legal, but such activities should never be allowed in our rural residential areas.

For the latest developments in the effort to stop this madness, and/or to view the video of the August 26, 2009, Fish and Game hearing, visit the Citizens’ group website: www.placerdeerhunt.com.