And the oversight of an island can change very quickly. We have presidential elections every four years, and often times, the political appointees can easily put in place case workers or managers who have a different viewpoint.
It actually depends on the nature of the pronouncement. If it is just an individual then yes, it can be in theory changed easily. However, there are varying degrees of severity on these things; some require hearings and some do not. From what I gather, this was not the more severe kind. But, just because an official changes doesn't necessarily mean that the decision changes. We have been pretty successful at this, but we are no means assured of it continuing.
This suggestion of mine actually covers both cases -- when we succeed before the specified interval, in which case, nothing changes and everyone has a reasonable shot. The other case, where no change is forthcoming cover the case where the officials are sufficiently intransigent to raise a question about fairness.
Remember, folks from FWS said "no way, no how" to KP5 and KP1. By your definition, those two should have been deleted too.
And, as I've suggested, the harm for doing so in this proposal would have been minimal. We would have had "new ones" for the new activation and started anew with the ones that made the grade. If, in fact, the reversals of such opinions continue to happen. Further, we've been "promised" another operation in 20 years. What that really means is they don't even want to hear from us for twenty years. It could easily turn into 25 or 30 in actual fact. Or, they could discover some endangered species that is incompatible with even a short operation; they have a long time to discover one. Or, they could get more persnickety about safety. We don't know and we won't really know for a good 20 years unless we
show bad faith and start lobbying for an earlier operation. And what will they likely say if we do? "Go away, you made a deal. See you in XX more years." It only took 15 or so years to negotiate this
Meanwhile, since many complain that changes "make it easier" then this would have actually made Honor Roll a bit harder
. You just can't sit on your laurels, something now more true than it used to be. If you argue that we "always win eventually" then you must argue that the reversals will happen and we get a modest increase in the supply of new ones, something a little closer to historical norms than we are likely to get otherwise.
I thought that "harder" was what at least some wanted to see. But not, I suspect, when it might affect them