>It's good to see this getting
>attention and being discussed. I've
>been talking with quite a
>few decision makers over the
>last several months and we
>can all nickel and dime
>the minutia, but the bottom
>line is that we need
>clarity, accountability and transparency and
>I believe we are set
>to move closer to these
>things.
>
>There absolutely has to be a
>clear cut structure and limits,
>but on the flip side
>we have proven that even
>though rules exist, there is
>nothing really in place to
>keep oversights like these from
>occurring in the future. That
>needs to be addressed.
>
>Thanks to all that have given
>it attention. It has made
>a difference even if it's
>the simple fact that more
>people are aware of what
>has and is happening with
>the conservation permit program. It
>requires more proactivity to continue
>the trend of diminishing the
>gray areas. Hopefully people acknowledge
>what a handful of people
>getting involved can do, causing
>them to do the same.
>
>
>
>
>
http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
I agree Tree, the current structure needs to be finite with proactive oversight. Personally, I would like to see a major reduction in the con tags. Remaining tags can be designated for specific/special projects. Money from the reduced tags can be made up/aquired through other means. It just takes a bit of thinking to get it done. These current tag numbers are out of hand and need to be addressed, for a few reasons, imo.
www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org