Quote:
Originally Posted by SLH
Would it be safe to say the membership didn't understand the implications of some of the recommendations? Its hard to believe that anyone would voluntarily give all that extra harvest to the outfitters willingly for the extra few tags we get in return for ****ing off landowners.
That and this idea that the sheep tags will be standardized across all WMU's.
|
Membership?
F&W doesn't understand what the implications will be.
They have admitted this....
Government statisticians couldn't provide any answers....
It is impossible for stakeholder members to have knowledge of what the implications will be.
I'm unsure of what you mean by "sheep tags will be standardized across all WMU's.". Are you referring to the possibility that Outfitters may now get allocations south of the Bow? This is sadly funny. The logic used is that to be fair and inclusive, Outfitters should have access to allocations everywhere. You know we all have to stand together to fight the good fight. Meanwhile, the opposite logic is used to eliminate Non-Residents from the draw.... Hypocrites!
IMO, this whole AGPAC exercise is dangerous....
Private consultation meetings effecting a public resource where no records are being kept.... Thank the ABA President for that....
Online "surveys" without qualifying and security measures to protect the validity of the results. With exception of the WSFAb.... No public accounting of the survey results.... But they can now claim that they consulted the masses.
Obviously confusing questions without sufficient information for individuals to make an educated decision... Not that this criteria was even possible as the government acknowledged the effects of many proposals were un-calculable.
What was that Duk Dog?