CWD Advisory Board Rejects DNR's plan

Main/Big Game Conferences forum rules Registration

Messages posted to thread: Rancid Crabtree. 13-Feb-09 Falco sparverius 14-Feb-09 Rancid_Crabtree 14-Feb-09 kildare46 14-Feb-09 Storm 14-Feb-09 1horn 16-Feb-09 huntnfish43 16-Feb-09 glunker 16-Feb-09 camoman73 16-Feb-09 Kevin from Wisconsin 16-Feb-09 Rancid_Crabtree 16-Feb-09 SERBIANSHARK 16-Feb-09 Rancid_Crabtree 16-Feb-09 camoman73 17-Feb-09 Per48R 17-Feb-09 Rancid Crabtree. 17-Feb-09 Sagittarius 18-Feb-09 Naz 18-Feb-09 ruger1022 19-Feb-09 Sagittarius 19-Feb-09 kildare46 19-Feb-09 Rancid Crabtree. 19-Feb-09 SERBIANSHARK 19-Feb-09 Sagittarius 19-Feb-09 SERBIANSHARK 19-Feb-09 Falco sparverius 19-Feb-09 Sagittarius 19-Feb-09 SERBIANSHARK 19-Feb-09 kildare46 19-Feb-09 Rancid Crabtree. 19-Feb-09 stingershooter 19-Feb-09 Rancid_Crabtree 19-Feb-09 camoman73 19-Feb-09 Sagittarius 20-Feb-09 Rancid Crabtree. 20-Feb-09 Sagittarius 20-Feb-09 Rancid Crabtree. 20-Feb-09 kildare46 20-Feb-09 Sagittarius 25-Feb-09 glunker 25-Feb-09 Rancid_Crabtree 25-Feb-09 SERBIANSHARK 26-Feb-09 stingershooter 26-Feb-09

Videos night bear by stinky Big Brow by wisheds Matt McPherson on the New Mathews Z7 by Mathews, Inc. Mathews McPherson Series Monster 7.0 by Mathews, Inc. Put Your Video Clip Here! What's New KORBINS CUSTOM STRINGS MONTANA MAPPING & GPS NICHOLS-BOLEY OUTFITTERS Bowhunting News MATHEWS’ BRINGS LIVE COVERAGE OF THE 2010 PRO/AM SITKA GEAR STRATUS SERIES SITKA GEAR DOWNPOUR SERIES Submit News Item

From: Rancid Crabtree. ........ ....... Date: 13-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

Rancid Crabtree.'s Supporting Link

The vast majority of the CWD Advisory Board commissioned by the state of WI to formulate recommendations for a management plan to deal with CWD in the deer herd has come out in opposition to the DNR's 10 year plan. more than 75% (12 of the 15 active members) who attended the required meetings drafted a letter to the Secretary of the DNR, rejecting their plan. This letter was also forwarded onto the Governor, Members of the legislature and the Natural resources Board.

The CWD Advisory Board was made up of a varied cross section of members representing a variety stakeholders with an interest in formulating solutions to the CWD issue.

The group rejects the DNR's CWD plan for a variety of issues contained in a 14 page document delivered on Jan. 21st. The document is viewable at the link provided.

From: Falco sparverius ........ ....... Date: 14-Feb-09

Interesting...

Overall, I can see the point. I think the SAG worked hard on their recommendations. They may not have been the right folks for the job though.

Two things jumped right out to me.

First, the suggestion from SAG was "the DNR should focus on the disease itself, and not try to use CWD policy as an excuse to serve other agendas;"

I think the SAG could have taken their own advice. Further reading of the article suggested to me that the members of this committee were not there to "focus on the disease" as much as they were there to "serve other agendas." Basically, it appears to me that many of these members were using the SAG to serve their own interests at a much greater scale than CWD.

Some bad scientific understanding was present as well, and this is much more bothersome. I guess that could be expected as the scientists were told to shut up or leave. My favorite (This may not be an exact quote because it was typed and not copied/pasted): "Clarification: Although the first statement says CWD is always lethal, the second statement says survival rates among CWD positive animals are lower. How can any deer survive a disease that is said to kill all infected animals? Why the inconsistency?"

Why the INCONSISTENCY? What inconsistency? If you see an inconsistency in that statement, you are ignorant of disease terminology. The people in the SAG obviously didn't have any background in disease management. It makes me wonder why they were there. CWD is indeed lethal. We know of no animals who have "recovered." I guess the same can be said of life in general, yet we can still give survival rates on all living organisms. Survival rate is how long a given animal, or group of animals is likely to live. For example (these are made up numbers), you may say that a given population has a survival rate of 30% per year. Then, you could compare that population to a CWD population which has a survival rate of say 20% per year. The survival rate of the CWD population is less. That does not mean that the disease is any less lethal.

The given fact that elementary terms such as this are poorly understood makes me glad that the DNR didn't take to heart the recommendations of the SAG. I am curious of other simple terms and practices were not understood by the committee. I would rather have educated folks managing my wildlife.

Falco

From: Rancid_Crabtree ........ ....... Date: 14-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

"I guess that could be expected as the scientists were told to shut up or leave."

FALSE! They spoke and lead the discussions at the beginning and for the majority of the meetings. In the last few, they were rude, and condescending and would interrupt unsolicited. Their actions were unprofessional and noted by many on the board. We asked that they not keep repeating things we had already covered and we were considering. At the final meeting, Dr. Grabski made motion that they not interrupt but that they should offer any new information they had and to answer any questions we had. They got up as a group and walked out. They were never told to shut up and never told or asked to leave.

"Further reading of the article suggested to me that the members of this committee were not there to "focus on the disease" as much as they were there to "serve other agendas."

Correct. That is what stakeholders do. They represent the interest they came to speak for.

"CWD is indeed lethal. We know of no animals who have "recovered."

Not so. There are deer that carry the disease and NEVER go clinical and live a long and happy life until of course they die of lead poisoning, broadheaditis or of a carwrectomy. Deer in captivity have out lived even the longest assumed incubation periods for CWD. I think you are confused of the difference between infected and clinical. Yes clinical deer will die but not all infected deer become clinical. This is especially true if both parents carry the "wild type" gene. Their offspring can act as a Carrier of CWD but not ever show clinical signs or die as a result of CWD.

"I would rather have educated folks managing my wildlife."

This advisory board was made up of many degree'd folks, some of which are professors and holders of ph,D's and other alphabet soup attached to their names. Dr. Grabski MS and ph.D. degrees in Bacteriology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is currently employed as a Protein Biochemist at a biotechnology company in Madison, lead our group since he had the most working knowledge. He and Phil Muehrcke (retired UW professor)were the ones that put this document together. You will notice that Al Phelan (30 years working for the DNR and now a member of the CC and on the big game committee) also signed his name to this letter.

I'm not sure you understand who it is objecting to the DNR's CWD plan and are (predictably so) acting again as a cheerleader for the dept. and showing bias. You seem to claim the group was acting in ignorance by speaking of things they didn't understand when it appears that is exactly your action just now. Normally, your a pretty bright guy that uses sound reasoning, I'm a bit shocked by your post and that you allowed bias to over ride your normally intelligent responses.

From: kildare46 ........ ....... Date: 14-Feb-09

They had a fit because the group was to be steered to the answers the DNR wanted. Your group falls into a very long list of advisory groups asembled by government at the federal, state,and local level. I know in this time of "change" that only the public sector goes to the table without an "agenda".

Been there, done that. With my profession & business, I hold no illusions that all come to the table without bias or agendas to achieve.

From: Storm ........ ....... Date: 14-Feb-09

"I think the SAG worked hard on their ecommendations. They may not have been the right folks for the job though ..."

Good intentions never baked a cake...

Falco ... Why were the "right" folks not assigned for this task?

From: 1horn ........ ....... Date: 16-Feb-09

RC, thanks for not carrying the corn to the DNR CWD baitpile.

From: huntnfish43 ........ ....... Date: 16-Feb-09

WOW the DNR asked a group of citizens to take input and arrive at a recommendation. They now that don't like the results so they ignore it. Predictable is all I can say. Be known they won't make the same mistake twice as can be seen by a number of citizens groups assembled since the CWD Stakeholders. They are now inviting a super majority that will come to the right predetermined conclusion to sit on these panels. They now know that you CWD stakeholders ventured off the reservation and they won't let it happen again.

HF43

From: glunker ........ ....... Date: 16-Feb-09

Storm, Some of the people on this committee were not assigned as much as they volunteered streneously. I am leery of people that have to get on a committee as it almost always means they have an agenda. There were groups represented on this committee just like the more recent deer units committee that have no business being on those committees, ie; they had no stake in the matter. Find out why they are even there and you answer alot of questions. A committee is formed to give feedback but then wants to run the show? Enough said? Kind of like a focus group picketing a company for not selling a product that they liked and the company realized was a liability nightmare. Somebody in charge has to make an executive decision and it might has well be the executive. Nothing got ignored, remember it was an advisory committee, not an arbitration panel. From some of the actions of a few committee members they might have been given more credit than they deserved.

From: camoman73 ........ ....... Date: 16-Feb-09

Glunker instead of using a round about way to slam someone thinking some of us cannot see past the metaphors you use. Just say there names. The trend is see is when rc is envolved in something you go directly to discredit him. If im wrong sorry.

From: Kevin from Wisconsin ........ ....... Date: 16-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

Todd,that might be one of the most well written, reasoned arguments ever posted on this cracker jack site.

From: Rancid_Crabtree ........ ....... Date: 16-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

I agree Kevin. Good thing Glunker wasn't talking about me. It was Todd that hand picked me for the position. I recall him calling my office and asking if I would represent the WBH. I said I would be happy to. In fact, I even repeated his very question and said "you want me to represent the WBH on this committee?" And he said yes. I was not a Director. I was just your average WBH member who signed up to sit on the committee as an "At large" (representing myself) member when I was solicited. I think if one were to dig back, You would find where I even posted here about signing up to sit on the committee after I learned about it so you can imagine my surprise when I was recruited.

But now I too wonder who he was slamming with his comments?

From: SERBIANSHARK ........ ....... Date: 16-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

Must be the toso groups guy. They of course had an agenda....but it failed badly when the guy couldn't even make the meetings half the times.

I remember when you were picked RC.

From: Rancid_Crabtree ........ ....... Date: 16-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

I hoped in the way-back machine and found this very prophetic thread. LOL

From: camoman73 ........ ....... Date: 17-Feb-09

ok i was wrong kick me.

From: Per48R ........ ....... Date: 17-Feb-09

What person initially drafted this letter?

From: Rancid Crabtree. ........ ....... Date: 17-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

My guess would be Dr. Grabski

From: Sagittarius ........ ....... Date: 18-Feb-09

Just because you don't like the results/conclusions/diagnosis ... does not mean the DNR is not listening to hunters.

It would be more disconcerting if the fate of our natural resources and heritage were blindly in the hands of a few vocal special interest groups with self serving agendas. JMHO

From: Naz ........ ....... Date: 18-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

Amen

From: ruger1022 ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09

I always said I was completely unhappy with the way the state has handled the CWD issue right from the start . Whatta a joke .

In comparison one of my favorite Elk spots is in a CWD " hot zone " in CO . A few years ago I arrowed my Elk and when the rancher loaded up the Elk to haul back to the ranch I asked him about testing the Elk for CWD . The guy said just one hunter out of about 35 Elk and Deer had the test done in the last few years . He said , " its no big deal anymore " .

I took the meat home , eat it and everything was fine . However a year later I did grow a third eye and a second Penis , < just kidding > .

Just let it run its course .

From: Sagittarius ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09

"The real problem is not how we shall handle the deer in this emergency. The real problem is one of human managment. Wildlife managment is comparatively easy; human management difficult." Aldo Leopold, March 1943

From: kildare46 ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09

Lets hope that human "management" remains difficult in the U.S. Kildare, February 2009

From: Rancid Crabtree. ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

CWD can not and will not be eradicated from WI or any other state. This can not be denied. At best, a policy of study/monitor/educate should be the plan. Reaching goal densities should help reduce the number of infected deer but not the infection percentage. It is not a threat to People, livestock or even all the deer so it should be handled with that in mind.

If it is found to be a threat to people and livestock, an eradication plan might be warranted. That would be ZERO deer in the infected area and since the environment reservoir remains a threat for a long period of time (perhaps a decade or more) ZERO deer would be allowed to inhabit that area for at least a generation. Until such time............study/monitor/educate.

The emphasis of the CWD SAG was not to make the cure worse than the disease.

From: SERBIANSHARK ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

"It would be more disconcerting if the fate of our natural resources and heritage were blindly in the hands of a few vocal special interest groups with self serving agendas. JMHO "

Care to extrapolate on that comment? Hunters wanting to have a target to shoot is a bad thing????

""The real problem is not how we shall handle the deer in this emergency. The real problem is one of human managment. Wildlife managment is comparatively easy; human management difficult." Aldo Leopold, March 1943 "

Trust me, old ALDO, was not talking about the "managers" we have in place.

SULLY.....our banking system lost more then the entire war in Iraq cost to date. And we didn't get to control the oil in the region...he he.

From: Sagittarius ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09

.... and educate ...... and educate ...... and educate ..... and educate ..... and

You can lead em to water, but ... then they forget why they are there. ;-)

From: SERBIANSHARK ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

Does that comment come with you wearing a skirt, and waving pom-poms?

From: Falco sparverius ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09

"Please in one short paragraph tell us how anyone has EVER proven ANYWHERE that CWD rates of infection are exponential and can wipe out a population of animals with anywhere near the speed and efficacy of the WI-DNR, or where eating the flesh of ANY animal infected with CWD has infected a human."

There is no research to suggest CWD would jump the species barrier to humans. I'll give you that. But the DNR has not suggested this could happen. No one has suggested this could happen. The CDC even says this is highly unlikely.

As for the first part, I don't know what the word "prove" means. That is an unscientific term.

First, you have to give some evidence of something. Where has the DNR said CWD can "wipe out a population of animals"

They do say the rates will increase if just left on their own. That is supported in research. I can't say I blame a government agency who's job is to manage the natural resources to attempt to keep that resource healthy.

Falco

From: Sagittarius ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09

serb, "Does that comment come with you wearing a skirt, and waving pom-poms?"

I'm NOT shaving my legs! ;-)

From: SERBIANSHARK ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

From: kildare46 ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09

""The real problem is not how we shall handle the deer in this emergency. The real problem is one of human managment. Wildlife managment is comparatively easy; human management difficult." Aldo Leopold, March 1943 "

One has to wonder if 59 years later, had the DNR staff,secretary,govenor, and legislature, understood the meaning of this quote, how they would have intially handled cwd in Wisconsin. Not just the $$ & resources, but the level of distrust built between stakeholders & DNR.

I must admit that watching my business crumble & the country rush to socialism puts me in a bad mood. So I pick out the "human management" portion of the quote and equate to big brother knows best.

I would like to think that the quote implys not to ignore the social ( i.e. stakeholders.. hunters, landowners, etc..) when developing a plan of action.

I do believe this lesson has been learned by some in the DNR in regards to cwd. Majority? Not sure. Like I said in a previous post..."expert" or "stakeholder" we all come to the table with bias/opinion and/or agendas. The hard part is setting these aside and listening.

When things dont go according to plan, private or public sector mgmt, to many times look for excuses v.s. the mirror.

RC

I have participated on advisory panels ( regarding proposed/or revising rules & regulations that impact my clients ). Wasnt going to get 100% of what we recommended. But we were there to look at the social,financial impact,the science used. The most difficult ( resistance between stakeholders & regulators )is after the fact commissions ( rules have been proposed/passed ) then you look for stakeholder input. When 12 of 15 object, you have a long ways to go.

Is this commission retained, or was it a one shot deal?

From: Rancid Crabtree. ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

Our commission ended in March of last year. The DNR has pulled our web site and the wealth of data including all the video of some really great science presentations. Aside from mentioning our group in the official 10 year plan, it's as if we didn't exist. **POOF** The fact that a majority of the members rejected the plan does not fit the WI outdoor writers media template because it has gone un noticed by them since it was not pro DNR.

From: stingershooter ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09

I saw somewhere else that the Conservation Congress and the Wildlife Federation did not approve of this. That says a lot about the credibility of the authors. Does the WBH even have a position on CWD?

Also wasn’t Grabski PhD the one who was claiming CWD was caused by a virus, or was that soil contamination back in 2002? Seems that those theories have been dismissed yet not one word from those who supported them.

This letter is scary because it was sent to all state legislators as if this were the unified voice of all hunters. And it should not go unnoticed that this was an intentional effort to influence them on other issues.

From: Rancid_Crabtree ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

"I saw somewhere else that the Conservation Congress and the Wildlife Federation did not approve of this. That says a lot about the credibility of the authors."

The letter was signed by the members of the CWD SAG. Those folks sat on the group to represent their organization. The people who made up this panel AND NOT the organizations signed this letter.

"Does the WBH even have a position on CWD?"

Yes, they are opposed to it. Actually there is no official stance.

"Also wasn’t Grabski PhD the one who was claiming CWD was caused by a virus, or was that soil contamination back in 2002? Seems that those theories have been dismissed yet not one word from those who supported them."

I have no clue. You would have to ask him but all the contact information was pulled from the DNR web site.

"This letter is scary because it was sent to all state legislators as if this were the unified voice of all hunters. And it should not go unnoticed that this was an intentional effort to influence them on other issues."

This was a unified voice of a majority of the stakeholders. Nothing more.

From: camoman73 ........ ....... Date: 19-Feb-09

This is what ive come to expect from the big wigs in the dnr. Pathetic as they are.

From: Sagittarius ........ ....... Date: 20-Feb-09

"The letter was signed by the members of the CWD SAG. Those folks sat on the group to represent their organization. The people who made up this panel AND NOT the organizations signed this letter."

"This was a unified voice of a majority of the stakeholders. Nothing more. "

??? Huh? groups or individuals, unified or ununified. And state legistlaters are supposed to clear on what position, from whom, about what?

Sorry Ron, the 2008 deer regulations were easier to follow. ;-)

From: Rancid Crabtree. ........ ....... Date: 20-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

Is your inability to understand supposed to be the benchmark for all?

I'll put it in simple terms. 75% of the members of the CWD SAG signed their names to this letter in protest of the 10 year CWD plan.

From: Sagittarius ........ ....... Date: 20-Feb-09

Sorry, perhaps I need more coffee this morning.

So, the individual members signed the letter, but the organizations they represented did not?

The question is, will the legislaters think the letter is the opinion of thousands, or just 12 people?

From: Rancid Crabtree. ........ ....... Date: 20-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

That letter was signed by a long list of SAG members and concerned citizens and is the exact route citizens should take when they have concerns. We all need to contact our Representatives and express our views. This letter was not signed by any org but rather by the 21 people who lent their names in support. My guess is that the people that received that letter understood this.

From: kildare46 ........ ....... Date: 20-Feb-09

Very easy to understand Ron.

The majority of the commission wants to make it known that they disagree, and detailed why.

They do not want the DNR to promote this plan under the guise that it is supported by the advisory board.

We are all entitled to our opinions on the commissions objections. Whether I agree or not with their objections, I would be dissapointed if they sat in silence.

From: Sagittarius ........ ....... Date: 25-Feb-09

Rancid Crabtree: "I agree Kevin. Good thing Glunker wasn't talking about me. It was Todd that hand picked me for the position. I recall him calling my office and asking if I would represent the WBH. I said I would be happy to. In fact, I even repeated his very question and said "you want me to represent the WBH on this committee?" And he said yes. I was not a Director. I was just your average WBH member who signed up to sit on the committee as an "At large" (representing myself) member when I was solicited. I think if one were to dig back, You would find where I even posted here about signing up to sit on the committee after I learned about it so you can imagine my surprise when I was recruited.

But now I too wonder who he was slamming with his comments? "

At the time of the position request, did "Glunker" realize that Ron Kulas = Rancid Crabtree?

From: glunker ........ ....... Date: 25-Feb-09

Sagg, Nice deduction.

RC, honesty is the best policy. It builds credibilty, trust.

From: Rancid_Crabtree ........ ....... Date: 25-Feb-09

Your right Todd. I will repost my reply now:

"It was Todd that hand picked me for the position. I recall him calling my office and asking if I would represent the WBH. I said I would be happy to. In fact, I even repeated his very question and said "you want me to represent the WBH on this committee?" And he said yes. I was not a Director. I was just your average WBH member who signed up to sit on the committee as an "At large" (representing myself) member when I was solicited. I think if one were to dig back, You would find where I even posted here about signing up to sit on the committee after I learned about it so you can imagine my surprise when I was recruited."

If you paid close attention, you will notice that is the same thing I posted before and is an affirmation of the truth I already posted. That is exactly as it happened. That is how I got on the CWD board. What I left out was the part about two months later when you called my office and after a brief discussion, you found out that RC was me. You had unknowingly placed RC on the CWD board. A board that met practically in your back yard yet you did not want to take the time to sit on the board. It was your responsibility to find somebody to take the spot you should have taken.

The next logical choice would have been any other sitting director and yet none stepped up. The next logical choice after that would have been a local WBH member that was known to the WBH. The last possible scenario was to pick an unknown and new member that you had absolutely no knowledge of but since WBH was offered a seat on this board and the obvious candidates wanted no part of it and 6,999 other WBH members did not apply, you called me. The one and only guy willing to do the job you should have done in the first place. I guess you get what you pay for.

During my time on the CWD board, I wrote lengthy meeting notes that I provided to the board after each meeting. It should also be known that during the 7 months of Saturday meetings during the fall bowhunting season, not only did I give up that year of bowhunting but I refused even one dime in compensation even though it was offered. I took nothing from the State and nothing from WBH. I ate the cost so it looks like I got what I paid for too. No good deed goes unpunished. WBH and Bowsiters have only one guy to thank (or blame)for me sitting on the CWD board and his name is Todd.

When it came time to have a WBH rep sit on the new DMU deer goal advisory board, all the directors were offered the opportunity to take the position. Only one volunteered. I seem to be the default guy that keeps a WBH chair from going unoccupied.

Is that enough honesty for you?

Lastly, This weekend is the Deer classic in Green Bay, This is also out of my district but I was asked to work the booth both Sat, and Sunday because not enough Directors offered to do it. Normally, 2 or more Directors work each shift. I will be working the booth alone On Sunday morning otherwise it would be empty. Stop by and say hi.

From: SERBIANSHARK ........ ....... Date: 26-Feb-09
THIS VISITOR IS CURRENTLY UNDER WATCH FOR DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR

And back to my prior comments about apathy.

It irks the shite out of me, when one person bust their azz, goes 1000 times beyond all others, and in the end , get bashed for his kindness and selflessness.

Some here simply need to be flogged.

From: stingershooter ........ ....... Date: 26-Feb-09

What is a stakeholder? Seems to me it's the groups represented at the table, not the individuals. That is how the DNR uses it for the committee, no?

Yet that term was used for the letter signers. It's confusing otherwise why is this being discussed? Or better yet why is everyone so defensive?