I'm so glad you chimed in to play devil's advocate. When the main conservation watchdog group in the state is crying fowl on the DNR after working with them so closely, some have said too closely, I'd say say there's something to it. Sometimes I think you only join these conversations to be argumentive and stir the pot.
I am only representing the other side of ANY story. People like to jump to the "stirring the pot" analogy to defend their side of the story.
I'm guessing you personally
have not been involved in collective bargaining, consensus decision making, group decisions where every decision maker has EQUAL input. You would then understand that individuals NEVER get their way and those individuals are the first to bitch that everyone else is F...ed up and they are the only ones that are right.
In the case of this Consent rewrite, everyone at the table does not have equal power. I believe the DNR appoint people that represent the DNR. So when you say the main conservation watchdog group (CPMR) is crying foul, is justified because they have no seat at the table.
I always listen and defend, if I feel it's right, ALL sides of every issue and I also understand that any one position is not correct
So I will say the CPMR is stirring the pot on this Consent issue, they have no business at the table and they are the argumentative ones.
You say the CPMR is right, I say the CPMR is wrong, with legal evidence, and I'm the one blamed as stirring the pot.