Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek
The purpose of public meetings seems to be to claim after the fact that public meetings were held. The only scientific support for regulations changes you get at public meetings are a few oversimplified platitudes that might seem to make sense at the time, but usually only amount to unsupported claims that the regulatory proposal is a data driven necessity.
But the data and scientific reasons motivating any change really should be published in written and electronic form to be more carefully considered and assessed by independent parties. Otherwise, the public can't tell the difference between sound scientific validation and basing decisions on unvalidated opinions of a few purported "experts."
The triple tail regulations, the red snapper regulations, and the speckled trout regulations all seem to be based on unvalidated opinions of purported experts (many Ph.D fisheries management professionals).
Conservation groups should be demanding better science before restricting access to resources that appear to be sufficiently abundant to allow greater or at least historical levels of access.
|
, I will go along with them everytime. If there is an issue, its with the LDWF Commission. They listen to their panel of experts who present to them the data and their decision SHOULD be based upon that data (whether it is or not is a different subject). Again, they are the experts in their field and they are presenting to the lawmakers, just like in every form of government