JJAS, I don't really care one way or the other. But, what I decided to try to understand was whether there appeared to be an unbiased, fair and ethical approach with a defined process. What i believe I have initially found is a somewhat dysfunctional approach that seems fraught with inconsistent messages. As we all know, anyone or any organization can pretty much make a survey say whatever outcome they want it to say. Then, the question comes into play as to whether a single individual or a small group of individuals independently represent and speak for an entire organization. If it is "personal preference" then why not survey all of law enforcement and see what all conservation officers say. Or, maybe that informally happened and it's inconsistent with what the stated position of the agency is. Or, maybe it didn't happen at all. I just find this really, really sad in the apparent manner that this whole thing has been handled. I'm just not sure that there isn't an issue that should be further followed.