Yes, Discussion is of course, fair - but sadly so much misinformation takes place when you don't have all the information to begin with - real facts will be forthcoming after the meeting (possibly meetings). Everything right now is assumption and conjecture. I am sure Christi, Dave or another member of ANOAAT will be sharing as soon as possible. I would imagine nothing final will be decided in just a few days. I don't consider it censorship to hold off until the meeting to wait for the facts. Sometimes things change rapidly.
Well it won't be long now and we'll see just what misinformation, if any, this leak contained. I still haven't seen an answer as to what tangible harm has come from early discussion. And some people getting upset because their attempts to pull a fast one got exposed doesn't count.
What this discussion does serve is to give the council some insight into the public perspective, which a responsible agency would have considered before taking any votes or making any decisions. I realize this isn't the US where agencies must post public notice and conduct public hearings prior to make such moves. The collective input from thousands has a way of finding points that a handful of people didn't consider.
And I'm still looking for the baseline study because surely they are going to "study" the effects in a scientific approach, right? Unless, of course, this is all just a cover to reduce the range that park rangers have to patrol.