>"At the time I received the
>email, no details had been
>worked out yet, that's all!
>And anything beyond what I
>wrote would have been speculation
>which wouldn't help nor would
>it answer the original questions."
>
>
>
>You don't understand what I am
>talking about. I am
>not accusing you of knowing
>anymore or any less.
>I am trying to show
>that the UWC built itself
>with a membership that had
>become fed up with another
>organizations inability to share information
>and use open disclosure policies.
> Now the management of
>the UWC is using a
>similar tactic, but somehow expecting
>its membership to not speculate
>or use emotion, when in
>fact that is what they
>do when they are not
>informed!
Let me repeat, "NO DETAILS HAD BEEN WORKED OUT YET" So I'm supposed to know and share what? They simply agreed to discuss and address the issues and make any modifications to the contract necessary to meet the settlement. That's why they will have other meetings, to work out the details. As Perry stated, and as the minutes of the Wildlife Board meeting in August show, there are some spending issues that are questionable regarding the benefiting of wildlife, and those will be addressed in future meetings, as will some of the expenses they claim are unique to the drawing. MDF/SFW will make their case as will UWC and they will come to an agreement. But until that happens, there isn't anything to report.
If you're asking for a blow by blow discription, that will never happen, nor should it! Unless, of course, you decide to ask the parties if you could sit in on the meetings so you could spread the news as it happens! I'm sure that'll go over big with MDF, SFW, UWC, DWR and the Wildlife Board. And we'd have an intelligent, unbiased, nonresident, mathamatical genius, to correct any mistakes they might make for the future of hunting. Go for it, dude!