[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
Re: E-M:/ WLFA News Release
- Subject: Re: E-M:/ WLFA News Release
- From: Tim Flynn <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:38:01 -0500
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Name: Enviro-Mich
- Reply-To: Tim Flynn <email@example.com>
- User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509
Title: Re: E-M:/ WLFA News Release
Again, I don't know enough about the issue to engage in a debate on the merits. I just know that the EISs I have been involved with have all taken over a year, and typically cost tens of thousands of dollars. As a sportsman, I would rather have the $$ spent on habitat management.And as a sportman, you don’t care if that management is well thought out or not? Do you care about the definition of habitat? Is any habitat type, or quality, ok with you?
A environmental assessment under NEPA, would give the agencies a chance to review, analysis and improve their management.
Now I can already head agency folks saying that they already do that, ok then just put it in writing in a formal document and release it to the public. What the heck is so hard about that?
My guess is that sportmen, and agency staff are afraid of bright lights and public review. They’re getting what they want and dam the consequences.
If that’s not the case then just show us. I dare ya! Oh, and if you don’t want to debate, then don’t.