[fsl1]

I think there is a difference without distinction here...

The RSA money comes from the private sector and doesn't go to "the man" at all if I understand correctly. The people using the resource pay for the research, which at first glance does not seem controversial at all.
However, my parents used to pay $6k per year in property taxes and it was all inclusive for school supplies, athletics, extracurriculars, etc. not to mention garbage and other services.

Now, I pay $30K on an adjusted basis and get no garbage service, we have "fundraisers" for a public school in one of the highest income areas in the US to buy pencils and paper, and we don't get deer picked up when they're dead on the side of the road.

The RSA money may never touch Govt. hands, but haven't they abdicated one of their old responsibilities without a commensurate reduction in the taxes we pay? What would the regulation be based on if not science? My municipality doesn't get any of the money that I pay my garbage company, but I never got a refund when they stopped providing it either.

Another interesting situation is "whose science" is being funded? A very different story if rec and commercial fishermen are both paying for the same "impartial" science. Ditto the science that us fishermen want to show that stocks are healthy and are willing to pay for but not if if it's used to show that we should stop fishing.

I applaud all of you who are so well versed in this issue; for those of you whose living is at stake it would be irresponsible if you weren't as informed. Like many other areas of regulation, there is sometimes a calculated morass of jargon, legalese, and double talk intended to make most people throw up their hands. Thank you all for sifting through it and helping us understand.