Just like the bureaucrats to know of a problem and purposely not fix it. But of course they did the proper studies and they announced the problem. They even told the public about the study. A meeting was held and at the meeting it was announced that a geomorphologist accomplished his study and his finding where that something will happen from the problem. The NGO’s and GO’s do this all of the time.
Now that I have confused you enough or given you an enigma let me tell you a story that will help put all these statements and questions into perspective.
First point of interest all someone must do is a report to the public. Like for instance to make something like a prenuptial agreement legal, activate the legality of the document you must publish it. Make it publicly disclosed.
On any study, done by public funds (tax payer dollars), the study must be published and disclosed to the public.
Now we come to the enigma. Certainly meetings are held to announce that the study has been accomplished and can be found on this or that website or you can pay to have it sent to you. Sounds good so far doesn’t it?
Well, bear with me, a little. When we were in our last months in the Grays River Valley, a study was done by a Geomorphologist. The purpose of the study according to the people living in the valley(those that were paying attention) was to define how the river will live. The study was done in seeking solutions to the severe flooding that was taking place in the valley. I attended the meeting that announced the Geomorphologist findings.
The Geomorphologist took me aside at the conclusion of the presentation and told me his findings on the Grays River. He announced to me that the river will be “straightened out.” I do not know why he told me unless it was because I wrote for the local paper. I never put this in the local paper. If the river were to straightened out it would take out some homes and severely reduce the property of others. The flooding that will take place when the river does do this will be devastating. It would be okay to those in the know tho because a few homes are okay. It meets the greater good of restoring the salmon to the river. The restoration of salmon habitat is the most important factor. It does not really matter to the “save the whatever groups”. If it meets the need then it was needed to take out some homes.
As long as the report is published somewhere it absolves them of responsibility. After all they “told the public”. Even if the publication is obscure and unreadable with convoluted terms, nothing has to be straight forward.
Urban development is the biggest and worst threat to salmon recovery. This has been clearly stated in all “salmon recovery plans” across the nation. All means to convince land owners that conservation is the key to sustainable development.
What they won’t tell you is that natural disasters work well in their plans. They have complete plausible deniability when a disaster takes place.
I recommend to anyone who wants to get to the bottom of this disaster that you research what land has been put into perpetuity for stewardship by an eco group.?