Ryan F,

'Thanks' for your cogent remarks that get right to the 'nuts' of this whole issue.

Although a necessary evil, I, too, have come to understand public comment periods for the 'red herrings' they often are: The respondent feels better for having gotten it off his or her chest, the agency feigns altruism for ostensibly giving them a voice, and then these same regulators do what was their intention all along. (Doubt this?, then take the time to acquaint yourselves with the 2008 CDC study of North Dakota populace's consumption of wild game vs. non-consumers).

May be time to take it to a new level in boycotting the whole system for a good while.

What would MDFWP do to make up these revenues if they lost as many upland hunters/sympathizers through this latest effort as was lost among waterfowlers to steel shot in the 1980's? (Maybe they could require license fees from all the non-consumptive users of wildlife who do little more at present than pay the salaries of folks like Deeble through their contributions.) That MDFWP recognizes the potential for hunter attrition occurring once again is evident in the inter-departmental quote supplied earlier by MTDDFAN. Take the time to read it, if you haven't.

I think it well and good if one cares to submit comments as it does have a place, but we need to do so much more if we ever hope to receive sound, irrefutable science from these people. Just exactly what those measures should be, I'm less clear on at the moment.

What with a world that is blowing itself apart faster these days than we can keep up with, I should think our bureaucratic energies and assets might be better directed.....but then, who am I?


Rob Harris