Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Butter
I would bet that a great majority of fisheries supervisor biologists and managers are for the increase. We will never know what this guy did if he remains anonymous, remnds me of MathGeek just stirring crap up just for spite 
There are people that disagree with everything, I can't think of many things that go through 100% (besides the Coastal Master Plan). I think its a needed increase, everything else has gone up. Fuel is a huge expense in doing fisheries research and fuel has certainly gone way up.
My problem is just the journalism, they find ONE person that disagrees with something and then run with it rather than get opinions from several people and then make the story. They get it out quick, sit back, and then let the W's of the world (and gov't conspiracists like MG) spread it for them |
Come on DB, do you really think anyone working for the state is going to come out and say they are opposed to something that their
Employer is pushing? I can't imagine getting any current fisheries supervisor or manager to say that he is opposed to it, at least not with his name attached to it.
I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, but he does raise some valid points. That is why I said a name would make this more or less significant
, depending on who said it.