Two fish also from Ingeston 12lbs and 22lbs -further details to follow.
Some of you may not have seen WUFs submission to WAG regarding NRW> If not click on the link below and be amazed at the self serving, rightous, outrageous, self congratulatory., misleading and in some cases downright inaccurate ==== you could ever wish to see. No mention obviously of the past 18 years, 10/12 million plus spent and a rod catch less than half of what they started with - and that' not even mentioning the Usk . A shameless piece of glorification without justification.
Or, as someone else summed it up rather better than I perhaps could;
"It all reads as very plausible doesn't it but you don't have to do too much googling to find endless self congratulatory stuff from similar organizations throughout the internet. Of course it's all our fault. We just don't understand " the best available science, logic and economics." There is no mention as to why the best available science manages to vary according to the outcome required. Neither is there any reference to how that science is influenced by the "economics" available.
I see that the WUF document makes a big play on the NRW concentrating on the "regulatory" side of things while in effect transferring functions, in other words actually doing the job, to NGO's which are evidently "willing and competent partners" That will be good won't it. We will pay the NRW through our licence fees and taxes which will then sub-contract out the day job to other organizations which will operate on a grant funded basis which in other words means a second tranche of tax payers money. There will be an argument that this will still work out cheaper and given the penchant for involving "consultants" at the drop of a hat there could well be some sympathy for it.
For those who remember WUF as a salmon -centric group there will be disappointment in the reference to "biodiversity, fisheries and recreation" {and it's in bold script}. I read this as anything for which there is grant funding available. To facilitate this new solution to all our problems there will evidently have to be "developed certain NGO capacities in Wales." No surprise there then. I wonder which groups could benefit there then?
There is also mention of 24 staff , so it's gradually going down then. And mention of spending 1.5 million a year, so it's gradually going up then.
Evidently there's something about successful amelioration of acid rain as well !
All in all a great piece of self promotion.
I see that the WUF document makes a big play on the NRW concentrating on the "regulatory" side of things while in effect transferring functions, in other words actually doing the job, to NGO's which are evidently "willing and competent partners" That will be good won't it. We will pay the NRW through our licence fees and taxes which will then sub-contract out the day job to other organizations which will operate on a grant funded basis which in other words means a second tranche of tax payers money. There will be an argument that this will still work out cheaper and given the penchant for involving "consultants" at the drop of a hat there could well be some sympathy for it.
For those who remember WUF as a salmon -centric group there will be disappointment in the reference to "biodiversity, fisheries and recreation" {and it's in bold script}. I read this as anything for which there is grant funding available. To facilitate this new solution to all our problems there will evidently have to be "developed certain NGO capacities in Wales." No surprise there then. I wonder which groups could benefit there then?
There is also mention of 24 staff , so it's gradually going down then. And mention of spending 1.5 million a year, so it's gradually going up then.
Evidently there's something about successful amelioration of acid rain as well !
All in all a great piece of self promotion.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.