If it cannot be sold to the open market, why don't we let that be the Mayor's new home, and in return she can take a paycut, which will save the city $$$ in the long run; it is a win win situation.

This sounds wonderful. I do hope those were sugar pumpkins, though. :-D

You want to sell an expensive house next to a dump, where you had to buy the house to settle lawsuits, for top dollar. I suggest you go the other way: low ball it and let people bid it up.

You seem to be making too much stew from one oyster. You have a data point. You can't make a line or a curve from that. I can't argue with the rest of what you said.

At the meeting, the DFW estimated a present statewide bobcat population of 1000-1200. When asked what the population was around 1970, the DFW had no data to refer to. In fact, except for the above figures calculated this year to buttress the rationale for the regulation change, the DFW has no population data whatsoever.

Without such data, any claim made that removing the quotas will either sustain or increase populations is not scientific.

This is an important point, b/c the DFW director said the DFW manages wildlife based on 2 values: cultural and ecological. The director said there was no ecological value to be found in the killing of bobcats, b/c they are not a "nuisance" or 'invasive" species, and b/c they play a key role in maintaining healthy biomes. There is a cultural value, however, in killing bobcats, b/c certain hunters enjoy the challenge and keep the skins.

So, what was so interesting about this meeting was that the "science" doesn't hold up—and won't until more data is collected and analyzed. The DFW found itself representing the "cultural values" of a minority of hunters against a majority of non-hunters, and arguing that the quota needs to be abolished because it is too much work for hunters to call DFW to see if the 50-kill quota has been reached.

What was disturbing to me was, that, lacking the science to back up its assurances, the DFW made the contradictory argument that the quota is unnecessary b/c it has never been exceeded—except for last year. The only time in 30 yrs the 50-kill quota was exceeded was last year: 52. This indicates that kills will increase if the quota is lifted. Given there is no historical data on population, the DPW cannot look to facts to back up its assurance that the population will be stable or increase.

I am not anti-hunting, but until the DFW has the science, the DFW Trustees cannot claim their decision is based on empirical facts, or "ecological values." If their decision is to remove the 50-kill quota, it will be based on "cultural values."

If 10% of residents want to hunt bobcats, and 90% don't (a figure that was raised w/out controversy at the meeting), a decision to remove the quotas will not be representative of the majority. It will be representative of the board of trustees "cultural values."

We should keep the quotas until the DFW has the science.

I have fond memories of the bookmobile showing up at my small elementary school. I am sure these small communities will miss this great opportunity for their children.

Just too bad :(

If you are basing the total amount of federal income tax simply on 11,863 household times the $163 that you say that a married household with one child would pay with a household income of $41,808, you are not taking into account that "median" means that half the households earn more than that and half earn less. Due to the theoretically progressive income tax structure, the half that earn more than that should be paying a higher rate of income taxes. The census figures that you are using do not provide an accurate picture of how much we pay in income taxes. Perhaps you should visit the National Priorities Project website to see where they get the figures that they have, and base your criticism on that.