Assigned Ponds

Discussion in 'California Flyway Forum' started by Sweatliner, Jan 31, 2006.

  1. buriani

    buriani Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,796
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    vacaville, Ca.
    I agree that any honest discussion on this forum has a benefit, be it ever so small, because this forum gets viewed by many in the decision making structure of the DFG. For what ever that is worth!!
     
  2. George

    George Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    16,212
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2001
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    You guys still at it ? All that and in the end you all agreed that communication was the key.

    I blame Sweatliner for bringing this divisive thread. Shame on him. Assigned ponder... I bet he is the kind of guy that loves to shoot spoonies and ringnecks.

    Later, George
     
  3. Calikev

    Calikev Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    12,114
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2000
    Location:
    Oakdale, Ca , USA
    Michael,
    You couldn't be anymore wrong IMO. First of all folks will write things on the forum I know darn well they won't say to ones face. Especially when dealing with someone of power face to face. Almost always to my experience folks are real brave behind a keyboard, but much more compromising in person. That is why I make a point of this, because this medium has some shortcomings IMO. It is the best we have 24 hours a day though...............to get a message out. However, as far as commentary goes, if BS was boullion we would all be millionaires on the Net. There may be some informative stuff here, but there is also a lot of BS as well. You won't know the validity of some of these things until you either meet people and can judge for yourself, or trust others you know about their opinions of those folks.

    God help us if this is the new medium of communication. I much prefer a phone call or meeting folks in person. More disgression is used and you can certainly understand better how someone intended something when they said it.

    Sorry to disagree, but I just think you are way off base.

    Kevin
     
  4. Tom Phillips*

    Tom Phillips* Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,622
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, California
    Let your "yes" be your yes, and your "no" be your no. :)

    Tom Phillips*
     
  5. RefugeHunter

    RefugeHunter Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,474
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Location:
    Live - Castro Valley - work Pleasanton
    80% of communication is non-verbal.

    Here on the net you only have words which means you are missing 80% of the communication stream.

    That's bad enough but then you add in the fact that your brain tries to guess at the missing 80%............

    What you get is a big mess and lots of misunderstanding.

    It's impossible to come to any understading or agreeement on passionate issues by using a words only forum.
     
  6. Tom Phillips*

    Tom Phillips* Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,622
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, California
    marsh-mello (Ray),

    That was great! I so appreciate your providing actual cost data to us. This type of information is incredibly valuable as we can actually see what it costs to manage an area for a certain purpose. We can more nearly understand the thought processes that are involved in making management decisions.

    For example, from your last few posts on this thread we can see that it would cost at least an additional $5,600 (more likely - $9,000) to have opened 350 acres of rice for the early 5-6 weeks of duck hunting. That's a pretty steep cost for a little bit of marginal hunting. Certainly, the per day hunter revenue would never cover that cost, and the waste in rotted feed would be detrimental to the waterfowl population, and probably the hunting over the course of the entire season.

    Regarding the mosquito control problem, there is a way to reduce or eliminate the control costs with a little tweak to the management of the area. As an additional bonus, that 350 acres could probably produce about 100 harvestable **** pheasants/year after the breeding population came up (1-2 years).

    Tom*

    Please do not stop your posts. They are incredibly valuable.
     
  7. Tom Phillips*

    Tom Phillips* Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,622
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, California
    That's not true. What you write has power in that it remains fixed in time and can travel. The written word is the only reliable means of communication. That's why we have written contracts.

    If someone is careless, or makes a mistake on a forum like this, he can correct his mistake or explain himself. That's not too hard to do. :)

    Sometimes I jest, usually in an obvious manner, but otherwise I mean what I say or write. I understand those who have similar standards. :tu
     
  8. CalBaer

    CalBaer Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,688
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Location:
    CA
    "I really don't think you meeting with the region staff w/o Pete present to provide his input and trying to restructure the survey was too good of an idea."

    This quote testifies to your arrogance and understanding of the process. I'm sure Pete will get his opportunity to provide input. This is a DFG Region II issue. It just exemplifies how you (lest I not confuse you as speaking for the UBBWA as a whole) feel your refuge should be managed. We feel the public should be involved and notified before changes are made that will impact them. Obviously, you do not. This has shown in previous changes to the hunt program as well as the one that almost occured last fall w/o public comment.

    When we met with Pete and yourself almost two years ago we asked that you work with the public if changes are to be implemented, since you did not consult the public on Pond 11 when the no-refill blinds were installed in a Free Roam area. We said there is a lack of communication to the users by the UBBWA and offered CWA's infrastructure to assist. You both felt at that time that there was no need to involve the public and there was no PR problem. This management style may have worked 10-15 years ago but the public will not allow it any more. We want to be notified and have a say in hunt program changes. Similar to what the Sac Complex has with a "hunters working group". Similar to what the Sac Complex did this summer with town hall meetings while they were going through their CCR process.

    I appreciate you informing me of what public officials I can meet with as a public hunter, taxpayer and as the Chair of the UHC. I do not apologize that Pete was not invited. I did not determine who was invited. It was not my right to invite him. For all I knew, I thought he might be there. I'm sure Region II and the CWA staff that were present feel their time was worthwhile, though you may not. Let's leave it at that. Amazing.

    BTW, hunters are meeting with the Klamath Basin refuge staff today as well. Sorry we did not notify you of that, either. :cool:
     
  9. RefugeHunter

    RefugeHunter Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,474
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Location:
    Live - Castro Valley - work Pleasanton
    But because it's so hard to do is why we have lawyers.

    The first thing a lawyer will ask you is: "Do you want to clarify or confuse? Do you want to tighten this contract or get out of it?"

    Contracts at least have some structure to provide meaning but posts on an internet forum which contain people's opinions, sarcasm, and inuendo are in a totally different league. We might as well be blogging.

    Blog on.
     
  10. marsh-mello

    marsh-mello Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,689
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Ca
    Its kind of ironic that I have ALWAYS stated that there should be input from the hunting community. I have never said anything different! I have always believed that everyone who is a stakeholder should be at the table. That is my personal position and it is well documented and I do believe you know that.

    No one ever said that there was not a PR problem nor that there was no need to involve the public. That's a fabrication of your own making. We felt that it was the DFG's responsibility to come up with a mechanism to make this happen internally and start utilizing its own web page and communication process. Much to your credit I DO believe that you have done alot to facilitate this happening. That's a good thing!

    Your right it was not your place to invite him, but you also have made it a point to not engage him so you can hold onto the point that you have not been allowed to provide input. I truely believe it would have been better for everyone if everyone was there at the table or came to the table sooner. That's not your call and I apoligize for hanging that on you. So there I can jump off the deep and and be dragged back to my senses sometimes too!.

    I guess what bugged me is that for two years now you have taken yourself out of communication process and then decried that you were not allowed to participate? Your right two years ago you were informed by Pete about this plan. It never had blinds attached to it but I keep hearing even to this day about the "master plan" and how there is a "hidden agenda". You try and sensationalize these issues because you want to portray those who would propose them and you disagree with as something less than honorable and forthright. Well for two years Pete has been upfront with you and you been no where to be found? You have had representatives meet and confer over this issues yet you come on here posing questions as if you know nothing about the proposal and the process or have big problems with it? Especially given the current process that is being followed and adopted by everyone providing exactly what you wanted?.


    I just have burr under my saddle I guess about somethings. I will get over it I am sure and everyone will participate in the process and we will ALL be better off for it. I was wrong to accuse you of meeting like you did you have evey right to provide your input.

    My bad - I will let it go....
     

Share This Page