Paul Schrimpf wrote:As you know Jim, I cover agriculture. I know many vegetation management companies and they do an outstanding job and are highly regulated. I trust they did the right things here. Failure to do so would result in lawsuits, loss of business, untold grief. They care and do good work.
And no, I am not on Monsanto's payroll, because inevitably people ask me who's paying my way.
Paul
Are you on Monsanto's Payroll?
Seriously, I have many problems with this first was that Metro Parks claimed to have a let live ala nature policy, that has
been told to me again and again. Why aren't you mowing the fields at... "We have gone back to a more natural way of
maintaining the metro park lands." "Can you save the eagle?" answer, "Well they are no longer endangered and we have to
let nature take its course." Then you run into them killing weeds with Rodeo over huge acreages where people and pets play.
Then we have the Davys Tree outsourcing, and the Metro Parks new love of burning through money in some of the most
amazing ways bordering on a CDC style social engineering in the parks.
Finally, is it really accomplishing anything? You can see the same plants on the other side of the river, in other areas so
what is the point. I received an email asking if they got a grant and the call is in. For grants are often the ill wind that
blows so many lame ideas forward. Let's say Dow, Monsanto, whoever offers funding to a group that turns around and
offers "invasive species control grants" and the winners of those matching fund grants are requested to use "Rodeo" is it
any different from a 1/3rd off sale? Is it any different from so many other grants that can cast ill while claiming to do good?
Merely Observations on my part.
.