wileywapati
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,808
Way to go HAWK and thanks to your Partners for standing behind you!!
http://www.sltrib.com/news/4054427-155/rolly-lawyers-criticism-of-herbert-leads
"Styler wrote back and apologized.
"I never intended to chill anyone's First Amendment rights," Styler told Draney. "I simply asked if your associate was speaking for himself or for the firm. I should have not even asked that question."
He added that he was disappointed his email was subsequently posted on several internet forums. "I guess I had expected some confidentiality. I regret this whole incident and I am sorry."
Styler told me the email was sent in frustration over criticisms of the DWR, and he sent it without thinking it through."
Or your strong-arm attempt was exposed.
"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."
LONETREE 3/15/16
http://www.sltrib.com/news/4054427-155/rolly-lawyers-criticism-of-herbert-leads
"Styler wrote back and apologized.
"I never intended to chill anyone's First Amendment rights," Styler told Draney. "I simply asked if your associate was speaking for himself or for the firm. I should have not even asked that question."
He added that he was disappointed his email was subsequently posted on several internet forums. "I guess I had expected some confidentiality. I regret this whole incident and I am sorry."
Styler told me the email was sent in frustration over criticisms of the DWR, and he sent it without thinking it through."
Or your strong-arm attempt was exposed.
"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."
LONETREE 3/15/16