DR. Dux- You summed it up nicely. Tom Hemker (IDFG waterfowl manager) and other staff members provided all the biological data and public input necessary to make a decision. The commission was informed that the other PFW states would be going the 107/7 route. All the info was given to the comm......they chose to ignore every shread of it. The ignoring of the data and doing what the hell they want is what has us ****ed off. As far as I can tell the staff at IDFG is not real impressed with the comm. I was even told by one staff member that the discussion almost became "unprofessional". I give credit to the staff for doing everything they could The comm. needs to be fired though. Duncan- Wow thats a surprise Wouldnt you think that if weeds would grow in an area that a crop would also?? If it is really that simple why wouldnt IDFG lease out the property to a row cropper just to get a field in there and some water? Maybe I am an idiot on this point.....but the solution seems pretty simple to me. DU guys- I have seen 3 DU projects. 2 of them in Idaho and 1 in SK. I have to say they are not impressive. Very few ducks using them and filthy. I dont want to bash DU too much but they need to worry more about cleaning their sites than they do about playing golf and drinking beer. I talked with Mr.Yake at DU today. He made it crystal clear that DU supports the federal guidelines as far as seasons go. He also told me that there should be no one affiliated with DU making statements on regulations in a public forum where they can be construed as DU's stance on the regulations. If I am a commissioner and I get a contacted by a DU chair that says he and members of his chapter think I am doing the right thing.......I can see where I would confuse that with DU support. When I am not around my contractors take my employees decisions as my decisions. The same thing applies to DU chapter chairs.