“ certainly have the ability to comment and request the survey and have an opinion on it,” Runia advises, adding “our department leadership did not think this needed to go through a public comment period, so there’s not necessarily a mechanism for the public to weigh in on this, unless they just send us an email.” The decision was reached without a public comment session traditionally offered in such instances by the GFP and other public-facing game and fish entities, according to Travis Runia, GFP Upland Game Biologist.
#Dept. s. dak. game fish and parks how to
What is shocking however, is that an agency which should be basing everything it does on science and math in the interest of serving the hunters and anglers which fund it, has eschewed that information which not only is obtained in a far less expensive manner than its marketing studies, but also provides hunters with details on where to go, what to expect, and how to get the most out of the natural resources the GFP is entrusted to protect and advance. In an era where the value of science has been eroded and knowledge has been knocked from the top position by the recycled buzz floated on social media, it isn’t surprising that such a lean toward spin and spectacle has occurred. At a meeting of the South Dakota Game Fish & Parks Commission (GFP) on June 4, the agency declared it would be discontinuing its summer pheasant brood surveys, suggesting that the numbers – which have trended significantly lower in recent years due to decreasing habitat on the landscape of the Rushmore State – were not as important as maintaining and marketing the state’s title of “The World’s Pheasant Capital” and its new “Hunt the Greatest” tagline.
0 kommentar(er)
