President Obama has promised transparency in government, from the White House down to local federal employees. Sounds like a great idea; I hope he is successful in that endeavor.
Secrecy in government breeds contempt and suspicion; openness fosters confidence and understanding. There are many examples of public officials, both elected and career public servants, who exemplify the common belief that what happens within the confines of government agencies should be a phone call away from access to the public.
Here are a couple of examples of the way it should be. I brought in a deer for CWD testing last fall and wasn't all that surprised by a call from Erin Larson, DNR Wildlife Health Data Recorder, telling me it turned up positive.
In discussing the matter, I asked her for some data on other positives within our township. She promptly provided the specifics of each CWD positive including, age, sex and date of kill - a dozen in all since 2002.
I received a similar reaction from DNR Fish Propagation Coordinator David Giehtbrock. With the trout season opener a few weeks away, I need some info on stocking efforts.
The same cannot be said for former DNR Wildlife Biologist Carl Batha, who last year attended a conference on the presence of lead found in deer that had been donated to food pantries at various Midwest locations. In response to my request for information, he scolded me about my "preexisting opinions."
"This saddens me," Batha mourned, "and frankly makes me overly cautious on how I communicate. Sorry." This for-me-to-know-and-you-to-find-out attitude has no place within a 'transparent' government agency.
Perhaps the most egregious lack of forthrightness has to do with the introduction of AB 45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 in the U.S. House of Representatives. I kept hearing bad things about the legislation and wanted to learn more.
I couldn't find any concrete information on it so I contacted my Congressional Representative, Ron Kind (D-La Crosse) to get the facts. The request was simple. "Does this bill exist and could you send me a copy?"
I received a response thanking me for offering my thoughts and comments. "It is important that I know the views of my fellow Wisconsinites so I can carry out my responsibility in the United States Congress," he wrote.
In the meantime, a query to Rob Sexton of the U.S. Sportsman's Alliance produced a copy of the bill, which deals with hand guns and semi-automatic weapons. As it turns out, the proposal would amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.
To put it mildly, AB 45 should strike fear into the heart of your average gun owner. The legislation requires you to obtain a firearm license, provide a photograph, thumbprint, demographics including name, address, and date and place of birth, and certification that the firearm will "be kept safe."
It gets worse. The owner must complete a written examination, testing the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding the following:
n The safe storage of firearms;
n The safe handling of firearms;
n The use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;
n The legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including federal, state and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements; and,
n Any other subject as the attorney general determines to be appropriate.
There are more requirements in the bill dealing with renewal of the license and the transfer of a firearm from one person to another, including friends and relatives. Why would any law-abiding citizen attempt to own a handgun or semi-automatic weapon in the face of these highly subjective provisions and potential violations (felonies)?
Criminals will suffer no such angst, however. In most cases, they already are in violation of the Brady bill, which has failed to slow the use, possession and transfer of weapons among street gangs and other miscreants.
Now for the transparency part. I sent another e-mail to Rep. Kind repeating the request for a copy of the bill. From his response, I learned that he has "enjoyed hunting and fishing in scenic western Wisconsin my whole life" and that the Brady Act "ensures that guns are not sold to those most likely to use them to harm other people."
Rep. Kind makes no mention, however, of the new legislation as ever having been introduced into the House of Representatives, and he failed to provide a copy of the bill as requested.
For the record, Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Chicago) introduced the bill on Jan. 6, 2009. It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary the same day.
- Lee Fahrney is the
outdoors writer for
The Monroe Times and can be reached at (608) 967-2208 or at fiveoaks@mhtc.net.
Secrecy in government breeds contempt and suspicion; openness fosters confidence and understanding. There are many examples of public officials, both elected and career public servants, who exemplify the common belief that what happens within the confines of government agencies should be a phone call away from access to the public.
Here are a couple of examples of the way it should be. I brought in a deer for CWD testing last fall and wasn't all that surprised by a call from Erin Larson, DNR Wildlife Health Data Recorder, telling me it turned up positive.
In discussing the matter, I asked her for some data on other positives within our township. She promptly provided the specifics of each CWD positive including, age, sex and date of kill - a dozen in all since 2002.
I received a similar reaction from DNR Fish Propagation Coordinator David Giehtbrock. With the trout season opener a few weeks away, I need some info on stocking efforts.
The same cannot be said for former DNR Wildlife Biologist Carl Batha, who last year attended a conference on the presence of lead found in deer that had been donated to food pantries at various Midwest locations. In response to my request for information, he scolded me about my "preexisting opinions."
"This saddens me," Batha mourned, "and frankly makes me overly cautious on how I communicate. Sorry." This for-me-to-know-and-you-to-find-out attitude has no place within a 'transparent' government agency.
Perhaps the most egregious lack of forthrightness has to do with the introduction of AB 45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 in the U.S. House of Representatives. I kept hearing bad things about the legislation and wanted to learn more.
I couldn't find any concrete information on it so I contacted my Congressional Representative, Ron Kind (D-La Crosse) to get the facts. The request was simple. "Does this bill exist and could you send me a copy?"
I received a response thanking me for offering my thoughts and comments. "It is important that I know the views of my fellow Wisconsinites so I can carry out my responsibility in the United States Congress," he wrote.
In the meantime, a query to Rob Sexton of the U.S. Sportsman's Alliance produced a copy of the bill, which deals with hand guns and semi-automatic weapons. As it turns out, the proposal would amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.
To put it mildly, AB 45 should strike fear into the heart of your average gun owner. The legislation requires you to obtain a firearm license, provide a photograph, thumbprint, demographics including name, address, and date and place of birth, and certification that the firearm will "be kept safe."
It gets worse. The owner must complete a written examination, testing the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding the following:
n The safe storage of firearms;
n The safe handling of firearms;
n The use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;
n The legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including federal, state and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements; and,
n Any other subject as the attorney general determines to be appropriate.
There are more requirements in the bill dealing with renewal of the license and the transfer of a firearm from one person to another, including friends and relatives. Why would any law-abiding citizen attempt to own a handgun or semi-automatic weapon in the face of these highly subjective provisions and potential violations (felonies)?
Criminals will suffer no such angst, however. In most cases, they already are in violation of the Brady bill, which has failed to slow the use, possession and transfer of weapons among street gangs and other miscreants.
Now for the transparency part. I sent another e-mail to Rep. Kind repeating the request for a copy of the bill. From his response, I learned that he has "enjoyed hunting and fishing in scenic western Wisconsin my whole life" and that the Brady Act "ensures that guns are not sold to those most likely to use them to harm other people."
Rep. Kind makes no mention, however, of the new legislation as ever having been introduced into the House of Representatives, and he failed to provide a copy of the bill as requested.
For the record, Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Chicago) introduced the bill on Jan. 6, 2009. It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary the same day.
- Lee Fahrney is the
outdoors writer for
The Monroe Times and can be reached at (608) 967-2208 or at fiveoaks@mhtc.net.
