Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek
I think the long term interests of the fishery are best served by pressing LDWF to document the science and explain their data and reasoning behind any limit changes. A long term limit change would be a bad response to a short term circumstance. Even if one has full confidence in the current LDWF biologists, I still think the public good is best served by close examination of the science to verify that the decisions are well considered and data driven. After all, the next group of biologists may not be as trustworthy as the current group. What if the NOAA/Vision 2020 types end up employed as future LDWF biologists? It would be better to have a pattern established of being open with the data and scientific reasoning. There needs to be accountability both to the general public and to independent scientific analysis of the data and decision making process.
|
Here's where I become skeptical MathGeek. There are tons of scientific studies that have been conducted by independent as well as LWF biologists concerning the BP spill. Most, if not all studies are not public! Most all have a gag order because of litigations on-going with BP. We, as citizens, are again in the dark as to exactly what did all that oil and dispersant's do to our fish stocks and environment in the affected areas.