USARK,

>>As far as federal legislation or regulation there is NO COMPROMISE. The government position is fundamentally flawed and need to be scrapped. They are just wrong period!

In that regard, if you've not seen this article, it might be of use...No wonder their "peer reviewed" articles are received by such skepticism...As is the IPCC report on Climate Change...They should change the name of "peer" to "paid"...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2490718/pdf/pone.0002931.pdf

>>1. SREL is not a government agency. They are part of UGA. Although their study will be completed in June, the paper is not likely to be available till fall. Maybe you could research whether they have used federal funds and could thus be pressured to release info prior to end of public comment on rule making.

Yes, I know…Finding financial links is proving to be a tough nut to crack…I see references to “partner” and “collaboration” (USGS, FWS, UF, etc) but, cannot find actual documentation of the funding that I KNOW exists when I read these “code words”…

>>2. Congressman Henry Brown of SC roundly criticized USFWS and USGS for not being present at the hearing to answer questions. That is now public record that we can use in our arguments against rule change.

Criticism is one thing but a forensic investigation of records (including correspondence, meeting notes and report information) and individuals under oath and for the record (under penalty of perjury) is what is necessary…

Carter and Clinton both cited the American Antiques Act of 1906 (as Obama has been petitioned to do) to “acquire” 1,000’s of acres of lands…The Non-Traditional Grants (Section 6) of the ESA to “acquire” lands via the FWS regulatory process under the purported “mandate” of preserving endangered species with their “partners” The Nature Conservancy (TNC), The Conservation Fund (CF), etc…There’s a lot going on for sure.

>>3. There are two proposals that we need to concern ourselves with right now. 1) USFWS Proposed Rule Change 2) Senate version of HR669 (likely to be introduced soon) that will try to establish a risk assessment process along with a "White" list. The guilty until proven innocent approach. It's tragic flaw is that it will likely be complicated and costly. There is no money at USFWS for that kind of proposal unless it includes funding to expand USFWS exponentially.

A senate version of H.R.669 is no surprise what so ever (the state versions of S.373 were and remain a challenge)…I wonder who will be the senate sponsor and to which senate committee and/or subcommittee they will shop it to in an attempt to get it to the floor…I do appreciate their tenacity, perseverance and dedication but with millions of tax payer dollars at risk to fund a new or existing program (and associated grant monies to numerous “experts”) and not to mention those lobbying junkets to Washington DC by their NGO partners and stakeholders and to top it off, there are those intergovernmental panels at UNEP, UNDP, etc to appease…Well, it’s lions, tigers, and bears oh my…

>>Skepticism is good. Skepticism is health. Look at all angles. Always question. Thanks Jim!

And thanks back to you…I’m certain that things would be different without a “reserved” voice on the hill so-to-speak…Ha! Ha!

Later,
Jim.

PS: I’ll keep looking but I did find these items of interest though…

Invasive Exotic Animals-4, Invasive Exotic Animals-8, Invasive Exotic Animals-9 and Invasive Exotic Animals-10 from the Joint WG/SCG Meeting, July 15, 2009

http://www.sfrestore.org/wg/wgminutes/2009meetings/15,16jul2009/Invasive_Exotic_Animals_Submissions.pdf


-----
CSRAJim

[ Show Entire Thread ]