Now I understand it's hard to get a "tone" from some minutes but it strikes me that the working group seems to be a tad dismissive of any opposition to the work they have done so far. The idea that we should simply allow this to go foreward unapposed and unchecked simply because " so much work has been done " is ludicrous. Too freakn bad, if I want to bake a cake I gotta break some eggs. If getting it right means starting over or even killing the concept, then that's what needs to happen end of story.
The other thing that bothers me is once again one of the "unidentified" ranchers stated that if OSA doesn't get pushed thru he will simply get the Indians to "get rid of the problem " is complete and utter BS. In a way I agree with the one statement that there is indirect compensation vis a vie grazing leases that do offset the cost ( I want to see the real cost in dollars from a ranch from the impact of wildlife ) perhaps then we should throw out a proposal that we raise the cost of grazing leases in order to help ofset the costs of OS, betcha we would hear the cries of protest from down south all the way up in Edmonton.
This program is ill concieved and IMO a waste of time and effort as it stands now. It also concerns me that I see no wildlife biologist on the WG ( stupid abreviations )
PS
also was disturbed with the attitude that when asked about the fact they , the WG, were in essence creating a 2 tier hunting culture. and the response was that with outfitters we already have a 2 tier system. I disagree its very similar to paying for an MIR their is a place for outfitters and there are certain safeguards in place to ensure rules are followed, I see no such safeguards in this OS framework......
thats what I think of it so flame away
