Thread: fish and game elections

Originally Posted by Tim Allen

Yes it is



Yeah I'm not so sure. A commission would be bound by legislation and policy or at least be held closer to it. Lets not forget the legislative framework is in place to manage sports fish and game in the recreational interest of license buyers- F&G choose to ignore what it wants and ignores by enlarge legitimate enquiry, partially through the leadership of a meglamaniac but largely because "leverage" has become a large operating influence.

With a commission in place improper activity could be held to account without the fear being held that it would be detrimental to our interests by loosing "elected councils"(). Conflicted decision making more obvious. Reality is our interests or more precisely our heritage and legacy aren't being well managed.

I could care either way. I just wish I could avoid funding what its become.

yep but like ecan once a comissioners in and political appointees seated they can be fuckin hard to expel
even with the industrial strength laxitive of a government change .
GSP follower...I really do want to understand what this is all about and what YOUR grievance with F&G actually is.

the pre eminence of tourism operatorsand vested interest creeping in by hook or crook in some f&g regions at the expence of the average licence buyer and what i believe is tantamount to hijackng the democratic processclear enough for you tahr