MENU
Lake-Link Home
LOGIN
Lake-Link
LOG IN

Wisconsin NRB & DNR, Not Political, TRUST ME!!!!!!

9/10/21 @ 9:07 AM
ORIGINAL POST
oldhunter
USER SINCE 2/28/13
DISPLAYING 1 TO 10 OF 96 POSTS
FILTER OPTIONS

7/4/22 @ 10:46 PM
Fin Bender
Fin Bender
USER SINCE 9/16/11

Honestly, I'm not sure there was a point for LL to miss. Random ramblings of Ere's ire does not a point make.


7/4/22 @ 6:02 PM
ere
USER SINCE 2/22/07

Agree to disagree.

7/4/22 @ 5:34 PM
LittleLuck
USER SINCE 2/16/17

I took a position on water quality issues and explained it defended it that is what you requested but you don't like my educated position that is backed up with facts and evidence. I did what you wanted and you aren't happy with it. You thought I only know hunting issues which was an inaccurate assumtion. I got your point regarding trust and two bodies working together. Long as I can remember their has always been disagreements and distrust between the NRB and DNR. The only difference now is DNR is stomping their feet louder now because they have been used to getting their way for quite awhile with no push back and accountability to anyone including the NRB. Now they are being asked to justify their position on a lot of issues and the DNR can't, they don't like it.



7/4/22 @ 5:15 PM
ere
USER SINCE 2/22/07

And once again Littleluck,  lots of fluff and bluster but missing the point.

7/4/22 @ 4:22 PM
LittleLuck
USER SINCE 2/16/17

I know pretty much about water quality and decent amount about PFAS. Every few years there is a new latest and greatest parameter that is a carcinogen and is better than other parameters at determining groundwater contamination around industrial sites, agriculture, landfills, etc. PCBs were big for awhile and dioxins and furans, pesticides,  then p-dioane,etc now PFAS. Talking to regulators and scientists, consultants etc there aren't really approved methods yet for PFAS or scientific consensus what method is/should be approved/best, what level is carcinogenic or harmful?. PFAS are everywhere and were used in quite of few things.. What might be background or atmospheric levels not attributed to a local source like fire retardant manufacturer? Lot of unanswered questions.  Yet people want to test for it with methods not approved yet, throw limits out there. Possibly false positives or unconfident unquantifiable levels. We are talking very low levels parts per trillion parts per quadrillion. People are trying to act before the science has been approved/developed and peer reviewed. Putting cart ahead of horse which is not sound science. Another question is when you find PFAS what are you going to do? Dig up all the soil? Then what where do you put it? I am not aware of any true remediation for it. PFAS are likely in wastewater in treatment plants. Do you not allow them to treat or discharge?. I am pretty versed about other things other than just deer hunting in Wisconsin regarding natural resource issues. Unfortunately lots of stuff in everyday life when exposed to enough of it can kill you or affect health.  But science and regulatory limits that are meaningful take time and real science to develop.

7/4/22 @ 3:27 PM
ere
USER SINCE 2/22/07

Littleluck, try making a statement or take a position on a topic without throwing out all your weak attempts at attacking anothers view. The DNR certainly is not without fault and the NRB is far from fault as well. My opinion is that it is a poor way of building any trust between two governing bodies when one side refuses the will of the voters or the system that they try and defend. I have zero respect for the chair of the NRB and will use the crossbow subject as an example. Prehn and Hilgenberg are rubber stamps for Kaz. The boards role in the water quality study and its demise is another example of opposing groups failing to work for the folks in this state because of an agenda. If you liking drinking water contaminated with PFAS sit down with me sometime and I'll discuss with you my personal experience and long-term exposure. You see the DNR and the NRB have many more pressing issues than just the deer hunt, but I get it, many like you fail to see the big picture, and there isnt a big ol tree hugger behind every tree. Keep bringing your tired statements I got all the time in the world.

 Leechster, I disagree. I went back and looked at all of the posts on this thread. You could'nt be more wrong on your majority comment. Dealing with the way you two respond to comments is like the old days when Rancid used to spread his manure on this site. Keep up the good work. Happy fourth of July.

7/4/22 @ 9:27 AM
LittleLuck
USER SINCE 2/16/17

Some people just don't like other's opinions based on factual/truthful information that are how things are in reality.  They like their alternate reality agenda. They often can't defend their opinions, get frustrated.

7/4/22 @ 8:47 AM
ere
USER SINCE 2/22/07

I am questioning little lucks opinion, and quite frankly I could give a rip what you think as well. I've been here a long time and have gotten along quite well. I have trouble dealing with people who only go with a nuclear style of getting their opinions across. Have a nice day.

7/3/22 @ 11:44 PM
Leechster
Leechster
USER SINCE 1/22/21

Ere, Are you telling all of us on this site, that Little Luck is 100%wrong? I would have to talk to you personally before laying an opinion on you. I will say that I’m swaying towards Little Luck because of reasoning consistency. You’re always welcome to come on here like us and give your opinion. I would have to guess that more people on this site agree with Little Luck than you. Why is that? Hopefully you will give a relaxed opinion.

7/3/22 @ 4:05 PM
ere
USER SINCE 2/22/07

Checks and balances????  Did you really just write that. Unbelievable. 

DISPLAYING 1 TO 10 OF 96 POSTS
Advertise here
Advertise here
Please take a moment to visit our sponsors. Without them we would not be here.