Possibly the most egregious:
As a regular member of the RAG I also think that too much consideration, time and credibility has at times been given to individual views or those purporting to represent an interest group. When actually it seems fairly obvious they are one person’s somewhat unscientific views and campaign against any form of conservation management.SWT's iniquitous response:
We have had several comments in relation to this and so the draft plan proposes some alternative engagement approaches for the future.Who wrote this comment? We don't know and we can't make them accountable for this comment. My guess would be a SRWT staff member. Otherwise I have a list of 6 people who have links to SRWT as employees in the conservation and national park industry trustees or friends who are unprincipled enough to write this.They are not independent. I specially like 'somewhat unscientific' Can we automatically assume that this commenter's views are approved by the whole 'scientific' community? Without transparency and without accountability we just have to assume this unattributed comment is egregious. It's just what the doctor ordered for SRWT because it leads them to justify the failure to consult the public.
As for ' too much consideration, time and credibility has at times been given to individual views' that can only be those of SWT managers whose tactics for dealing with those wanting to discuss important matters were usually to talk on and on endlessly about trivial matters in the hope that there would be no time left for serious scrutiny.
But enough. Just mentioning it threatens to give playground tactics credibility it does not deserve.