Marty,
I will concede the impetus was external. I would also guess though, that the public statement by the DNR attributing it to other organizations was a public relations move. Having worked in the field, I've seen groups attribute their own opinions to other groups in order to deflect criticism (in this case, it didn't work so well). However, I admit I have no firsthand knowledge that this really was the issue.
While I have the floor, let me tell you a potentially hypothetical story...
Let's say PA's Dept. of Transportation (PennDOT) wanted to build a bypass around a back country town that was located on a road between major cities (Allentown-Philly) and northern attractions (Poconos). The road has to be built somewhere and land has to be taken. Option 1: build it along a stream, make 5 bridge crossings, and impact 2 endangered (one thought to be extirpated) minnow species. OR option 2) build it along a mountain side and displace 200 people living in a mobile home park. What do you do? Maybe the agency leaks it out that they are going to impact this stream and the poor minnow...maybe then the local watershed group run by a nice lady in her 50's who is a nature lover but not a scientist organizes and gets locals in an uproar...maybe then PennDOT decides to "graciously" allow the watershed group a seat at the table as a stakeholder...and then maybe PennDOT says, the lady is right and they'll have to go with the lesser discussed "plan B" and concedes the lady was the reason for their decision. In the end, 200 residents of a mobile home park are pissed at a 50 yo woman who runs a local watershed group and not so much at PennDOT, while PennDOT avoided the costs of 5 bridges and mitigation/conservation of 2 endangered species.
The point - gov't agencies are often better at deflecting blame than making sound scientific decisions.
Will DNR always make the right call - probably not. Was the C&R process BS - definitely. But without scientific info, what option would the DNR have other than to be biased and capricious?
Oh, and if you hadn't figured it out...Brandon is the 50yo woman in the more recent story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5th Tuition
Bug Guy; you have a point, however, it's this first sentence of your statement that I have trouble with. What totally drove me up the wall about the DNR decision on PSCR is that DNR did NOT use their own opinions to make restrictions on C/R. DNR used the opinions of the MCBA to impose restrictions. To impose restrictions on one user group based on the "concerns we have heard" from another user group is cowardly and incompetant.
5th (Marty)
|