08-11-2014, 11:36 AM
"So what,F@W made their decision based on however they figured the issue"
So you really don't care why government agencies make their decisions? Anything goes? Wild attitude! In fact, the action was largely on the basis of getting rid of lawsuits and curtailing agricultural cultivation in some of the national refuges. The refuge director was quite mealy-mouthed in his explanation:
"A July 17 letter from James W. Kurth, chief of the national refuge system, makes no specific mention of any concerns that the pesticides or the crops pose risks to wildlife or pollinators, such as bees and butterflies. It just says they don't fit refuge objectives, such as promoting natural ecosystems." http://news.yahoo.com/wildlife-refuges-p...36468.html
I suppose there are no GMO duck or geese wetland feed crops so maybe they don't need GMOs if the refuges want to revert to more original habitats and close out agriculture. Citing the F&WS actions says nothing about GMOs, only that federal agencies' programs can be manipulated by lawsuits.
So you really don't care why government agencies make their decisions? Anything goes? Wild attitude! In fact, the action was largely on the basis of getting rid of lawsuits and curtailing agricultural cultivation in some of the national refuges. The refuge director was quite mealy-mouthed in his explanation:
"A July 17 letter from James W. Kurth, chief of the national refuge system, makes no specific mention of any concerns that the pesticides or the crops pose risks to wildlife or pollinators, such as bees and butterflies. It just says they don't fit refuge objectives, such as promoting natural ecosystems." http://news.yahoo.com/wildlife-refuges-p...36468.html
I suppose there are no GMO duck or geese wetland feed crops so maybe they don't need GMOs if the refuges want to revert to more original habitats and close out agriculture. Citing the F&WS actions says nothing about GMOs, only that federal agencies' programs can be manipulated by lawsuits.