For the sake of argument, let's say what CFM is reporting is true. So what? State fishery policy is made by a whole cast of characters including the Commission, the Director, Regional Directors, etc. If any of these folks promote a particular policy position regarding fishery management objectives, they need to base it on sound fishery management principles, not some percieved "quid pro quo" for providing educational assistance X number of years ago.

Now, if a user group is currently providing financial gain to the policy folks with the intent of influencing policy decisions, that's a different story. That's sometimes called bribery. Except in Washington DC where they call it "free speech". But I won't go there.........

I would argue that providing educational assistance to young students is a great idea. If that assistance influences their thinking when reach the policy level, so be it. That's to be expected. But after spending seven years in college, I can tell you that anyone who graduates with a BS/MS/PhD has the ability to think for themselves. That's the point of getting an education. Most graduates would resent having some user group tell them how to think, even if said user group helped them through school.

Lastly, as someone else mentioned, the forest products industry funds a whole lot of young forestry students at places like Oregon State, UW, ESF - Syracuse, Michigan State, and other notable forestry schools. Funding fishery students is no different.

Let's get back to fishing.......