I thought it was more than just a little absurd last month when somebody - either on the 'comment' section of the CBC website or a radio talk show - suggested that part of the reasoning behind government's decision to cut the guts out of fish and game protection resources was to clear the path for future development proposals.

“Now that’s a bit much,” I recall saying. “A little too dramatic, don’t you think?”

The next day I read a newspaper report, quoting Corner Brook’s Don Ivany of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, who said cuts from the Wildlife Division include people who were responsible for managing biodiversity, species at risk and the environmental assessment process which development projects have to go through.

The day after, I read that during a conference call with the media, Finance Minister Jerome Kennedy was asked if the Wildlife Division was targeted in the recent budget cutbacks for more reasons than saving money.

There’s a reason that reporter is asking this question, I figured. He knows more about this than I do. What’s the minister’s reaction?

“I can tell you the shale oil potential on the west coast is enormous,” the minister said, “and it could, to a certain extent, hold the future of the west coast of Newfoundland and the Northern Peninsula. But that is not going to be developed at all costs. There have to be environmental processes and regulations in place. We have a beautiful province with a pristine environment and I have never heard - at the cabinet table or elsewhere - any minister saying we are going to develop at any and all cost. That’s not how we operate here.”

Okay, so do you actually feel relieved by that response, or was that website/radio comment not so far “off the wall” as I originally thought? Surely no government would consider for a moment putting our fish and wildlife resources -  our tradition, our livelihood, our passion, who we are – at risk  in the name of “development.” It would be comparable to suggesting or even hinting river privatization, which would amount to political suicide in the first degree.

So what is it? Why did the Kathy Dunderdale administration eliminate 30 percent of the province’s Wildlife Division staff and 20 percent of Inland Fish and Wildlife Enforcement?

Who advised her? Do they still have jobs?

Public service cutbacks were probably necessary/warranted - for the sake of budget balancing -  in some departments during the most recent budget, even though they will ultimately affect us all in many different ways. But nowhere was it more severe and  ill-advised than on the resource management agencies whose job it is to protect our fish and wildlife resources.

This is Newfoundland and Labrador, folks – the land of mud trout, salmon, moose, rabbits, turrs, blueberries… it’s what/who we are and have always been. We cannot sit back and let one administration pick away at that; not after the progress and improvements former premier Danny Williams made in recent years.

Impending rampant poaching is undoubtedly the primary concern of hunters and anglers in the province right now. I’ve spoken to many of them and the Sportsman recently posted a report on the cutbacks on our Facebook page as well, asking “friends” for their views. The negative reaction to these cutbacks was fast and furious.

“You won’t need to apply for a moose licence this year,” my friend Johnny noted during a conversation at the office; “just go on out and shoot one.”

Did anyone involved in this decision stop to think for more than five seconds what effect this is going to have on our fish and game? One enforcement officer to cover hundreds and hundreds of kilometres of rivers, trails and highway on the Northern Peninsula? You cannot be serious! And let’s not forget or downplay the effect that these cuts will have on the economy.

I ran into a conservation officer recently who told me morale is at an all-time low, citing a total lack of support by their departmental executive as the primary reason he and others will be looking to leave the civil service.

As an angler, hunter and editor of this magazine for 23 years, I’m constantly in contact – through phone calls, letters, emails, on the road and even in grocery stores and shopping malls – with whom I refer to as “average” Newfoundlanders and Labradorians – just like me. And we’re not the least bit pleased or in agreement with these latest cutbacks to our valued fish and game resources. It demonstrates a lack of regard for these resources, and mark my words, votes will be lost as a result come the next election.

I’ve witnessed organizational changes and policy decisions over the years that simply defy logic and are clearly political. As it was, the responsibilities for wildlife management, enforcement and landscape management and protection were already spread across many different departments (which just boggles the mind; who the hell came up with this?), making a seemingly simple request for a permit, a licence or an answer to a question, an all-day affair.

And of course it goes without saying that the 150,000 anglers and hunters in the province are going to suffer and even be forced to change their lifestyle in some ways. Now that’s a scary thought. These latest cuts may indeed be the final nail in the coffin for our beloved wildlife and natural beauty that we call Newfoundland and Labrador. When there are no longer any moose to hunt, fish to catch or parks to camp in, we’ll have lost what makes us Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.