Exactly, CodyDawg. Look where electing "a good guy to have a beer with" got us. I want someone that IS involved in politics, because sadly thats what you gotta do to get things moving. Hopefully there is enough focus (i think there is) on this new amendment that people will play it straight and there will be accountability

Yes, and we didn't get any. How about knowledgeable folks in the areas of wetlands, hydrology, forestry, fisheries, geology, and others relating to the land and waters? Not joe-shmoe wildlife club president and everyone's buddy who has money.

Fill it up with scientists and/or those who have field experience who understand what areas need the attention and how to address those problems in the most cost effective way. You know, experts?

You get these people that were appointed who will just turn it over for studies to be done....more money and time wasted. If you had experts in this field of work they'd have most of the solutions right there in the meeting so they can move forward to getting something accomplished with minimal study and exploration into finding the facts. They'd have the knowledge right there at the table for every meeting. Not a bunch of stuffed suits and that's what was appointed. The other reason to have experts at the table is that when someone comes in and gives them a bunch of opinions and ideas of what needs to be done, they can see the sunshine being blown up their skirts and call them on it. With politicians decisions are made by whoever screams the loudest and blows the most sunshine. They aren't experts in every field so they have to digest what they are told and make a decision. If there were people who specialized in the fields I mentioned above on the council, they could do a much better job at digesting the information and making proper decisions based on facts and not who is blowing the most sunshine.

I dont have a lot of time to look at the others, but here is one that has the degree you are looking for...and I dont know this guy from adam.

"Schroeder has a bachelor of arts degree in botany from Drew University in New Jersey, and a master of science degree in forestry from Duke University in North Carolina. Schroeder practiced forestry for over ten years"

I work with many and am a professional scientist. One thing I will tell you is that some good ol' hands on habitat work experience trumps many of today's "degreed" professionals hands down. So guys who have worked with MWA, PF and other groups that just plain do conservation projects know pretty well what works and what doesnt. Dont sell them short.

Not too likely

Couldn't agree more with you Jackpine. We've been there, done that and they squandered it. I'm waiting for it to happen here and then they'll come back in a few years for more.

I agree with you Cody... a couple more that I think might have something of value... taken from the strib...

-------------
Lester Bensch, of Ashby, Minn., spent 25 years in the computer industry. He started the Viking Valley Hunt Club, which he owns and operates, and has been active in conservation and preservation. (note from me> BTW, I spend lots of time in Ashby, and have watched both good and bad in Lake Christina... those folks in that area have worked on big and small projects for a long time to help the waterfowling in troubled times)

Michael Kilgore of Lino Lakes, an associate professor of Natural Resource Economics and Policy at the University of Minnesota's Department of Forest Resources.

Jim Cox, of Cologne, owns Midwest Thermo Equipment Inc. He is former president of the Minnesota Waterfowl Association and serves on the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Trust board.

Wayne Enger, of Perham, Minn., is Otter Tail County director of the Farm Service Agency and a recent past president of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association.

Scott Rall, of Worthington, Minn., is president of Nobles County's Pheasants Forever.
--------------

I don't know any of these or the others, but it does seem like each are not just schmoes taken off the streets because they have nothing better to do. And was it just me, or were there a couple folks on the list who might seem to not only be "stuffed suits" who know nothing about the environment this is intended to improve and protect? Nobody says they should not be watched over, and questioned, and follow the dollars, but to categorically call them all <insert your flame here> and stating this has failed already.... heh, you guys crack me up at times

(note the wink, I am not being nasty)

It's a group of individuals that make decisions, folks. While it's true that baggage from the past tends to blur the glass half-full or glass half-empty perspective for some people, how about a little more optimism for the future. We've a new program, let's at least support what the majority decided upon, instead of demonstrating poor attitudes over vote results.

When something bad happens, bring it on. Until then, I think we should wait and see. If, by chance, it is a successful program, I'll be proud to say I supported it. And you know darn well those who whined about it will be too proud to say they were wrong.

Let me guess, LMYOUT will reply with a 'I'd be the first to admit I was wrong' if it does succeed in reaching the group's intended goals. Fuggetaboutit...

Am I the only one that finds this point of view a little disturbing? I agree it is wrong to call it a "failure" before it is given a chance but to say withhold all opinions on how the process is unfolding until it unfolds is disturbing in the least. Questioning things that we have, well "questions" about is the best way to put some accountability into the process. To think the best approach is to blindly sit back and "wait until we see how things come out" without ever questioning the process is IMO a poor way to run a democracy.

You know, what's the point of discussion here? I'm tired...whatever...

"The point of discussion here?" is should people just sit back and see how things turn out or express there opinions as the process unfolds.

Speaking of accountability... I'm curious here...

What are you guys exactly doing to hold them accountable, besides posting opinions online in a message board??

Writing letters to your representatives? Phone calls? Attending meetings?

I personally am reading the opinions of outdoors people like the ones on this forum to see what they have to say about things as they happen concerning the amendment and I add this to my knowledge about the subject. Like this thread here discussing the appointees to the council. Have I been firing off e-mails to my state rep's every time I hear something? No of course not. But If from the knowledge I get here and other places I feel IMO things are going the wrong way yes I will write my state rep's. Again, yes I believe it is to early to past judgement on it's success or failure but I do not think it is at all to early to discuss things as they unfold.

How do you tell the difference between factual knowledge, or subjective, skeptical opinion, fishorgolf? That's my point - there are several who post who appear to have all the answers before anything even happens. Factual or opinion-based knowledge - which is it?

I don't think anyone said they had the answers here. I think there are a few of us that are skeptical because of what has been done in the past. There is nothing wrong with being causious. I for one don't believe any polatition period. They never do what they say.