Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gear Restrictions and Trout Fishing Regs' started by Sparky23, Mar 27, 2018.
So what was decided on this before closed?
That no one can get along. That everyone else is right and those that don't agree are idiots.
Same old stuff, special interest groups steering our fish and game laws without any scientific reasoning bothers some. On the other hand, there are a some who really like that idea since their "groups" are the ones pulling the strings. That's just my opinion.
I think one result was that some feel it's a good idea to have someone wih knowledge on the NRC, while others see it fraught with danger. Like all things political it depends on which side of the fence you are on. I guess we'll see is about all we can do.
After yesterday's Cold water steering committee meeting. The comments made off hand by the new comissioner. Showed total bias and to me seemed disgraceful. As a Representative of the Anglers of the Ausable and as a committee member of the cold water committee. The comment that he would abstain from voting at the meeting but would make his position known when he votes as a NRC commissione. His tone showed the bias he has displayed for some time.
Yep, I was there too, as you know. What I saw was a huge conflict of interest
I took that as a joke. It got a pretty good laugh so I think most other people did too. He did say it right after Zorn said the voting would only be committee members and Walters is not on the CRSC but he is Zorn's boss, several times removed. I thought he made the joke so that Zorn wouldn't be in the uncomfortable position of having to count the vote of a non-committee member or tell his superior's superior that he couldn't vote. Good management.
What did you see that was a conflict? He did say at the beginning of the meeting that he was there to hear the science as it got reported rather than hear it second hand.
Its a joke because they dont take science just the deepest pocket...or there personal interest and not that of the public. But we have already seen that your one sided mind can not see that just because one group wants something it isnt whats best for the majority or the fishery. Guessing the joke was that his attitude is much like yours.
Kzoo it was out of line. There was comments made I am sure you did not hear that I did. He has played a major role to have the NE side of the state where he lives to have the type of water there is there. He has attended these meetings for some time has always been vocal now has the final say.
Comments made at the meeting? Do tell. I was sitting just a few feet behind you.
Yep you were, and now you have proven your bias as well. The simple fact is, he shouldn't be sitting at the table with the board, he shouldn't be there, period. It was pretty obvious who he sides with, all one had to do was look who he mingled with after the meeting to see that. The simple fact is, if the "appearance" is there, that all it takes to create and issue, and that issue is there, only it's FOR you, but just wait until something comes against you and see how you feel then.