Originally posted by elkrun:
Originally posted by JJ:
[b] Jerry now you are seeing the bigger picture you better watch out.
Elkrun. WT waited for over two years on the issue before they went to court. WDFW was in breach of the law, how do you suggest you get the WDFW to comply?
This is a win for wild fish. Neither side got exactly what they wanted 100%, that is called compromise. If you can't see that then our wild fish have no hope. JJ
My point is that the issue isn't solved. All that has been done is allow another avenue for more lawsuits as I explained in my first post. I understand the concept of compromise. It is my opinion, all that was compromised was 58K. The WDFW cannot please all interest groups. I realize they are not a perfect organization by any means, but I have had the sense that they are trying to make positive changes and listen to more input from the public as it is. They are not an instant gratification type system. Changes take time. We want wild fish back now, but that wont happen. I spoke with a biologist last week after he spoke at a meeting I attended. We discussed this very topic. They have lots of great changes in mind, there are some great idealists working there. The problem is funding for these changes. SO, back to my point.... would WT like to really see some changes or is that just a platform for fundraising? Earmark that money for some specific changes that both sides agree need to be done, and give it back. Come on, as was pointed out earlier by an unnamed responder... 58K is a mountain money 
[/b]58k was their legal cost. They didn't make anything by settling, they just paid their lawyers fees. That mountain of money won't go towards anything other than legal costs WT has already incured. The WDFW agreed they were in the wrong, so they had to pay the complaintant's legal fees. Its pretty standard.
_________________________
"If fishing is like religion, then flyfishing is high church." -Tom Brokaw
Previous Topic
Index
