Where's the hyperbole you're complaining about?

The comment you're responding to says "...while letting the condition of the lakes further erode", which the article you linked to supports.

> ...extrapolation based on feeling rather than facts...

12 of 85 is a fact. It's basic logic to estimate the effect of this.

The administrator in the best position to understand the impact of this has provided an analysis: "Cutting back the control program by one-sixth would allow over one million lamprey to survive, McClinchey estimated. Those lampreys would eat nearly 5 million pounds of fish, equalling $105 million in lost economic output and potential, far outstripping the cost of the workers’ salaries."

What's your basis for dismissing this as feelings? It appears irrational.

Saying something involved hyperbole means you think part of the claim was exaggerated, not that you think the entire affair was invented from the ground up.

E.g. if your coworker comes into work and says "Wow, you guys wouldn't believe it - I was passed by this maniac doing at least 140 mph on the way in to work today. What a crazy speeder!" then you see on the news the police arrested the driver for driving up to 95 mph. You might say "140 mph sounds like hyperbole, it looks like it was significantly less". If they respond "what's the hyperbole, you don't think he was speeding? You're irrational!" you might be a bit confused as, leaving the unnecessary bit at the end aside, the hyperbole was the clear and excessive exaggeration of the rate of speed, not an implication the individual was driving safely this morning.

In the above the hyperbole was "they canceled invasive species control programs for the Great Lakes". Well no, they are risking it being ineffective and causing great harm due to a personnel cut somewhere on the order of 15%-20%. The exaggeration here is the amount it was cut. At no point was it claimed the exaggeration was there could be some level of a negative impact as a result.

Hardly "a lot of hyperbole", especially since the following sentence clarifies (you might understand that it's specifically quoted for a reason).

To me it doesn't seem worthwhile to respond from the perspective of misinterpreting a comment, especially when being pedantic. One would hope the same level of precision could be applied to the writing as to the reading?

If breckenedge had corrected the department's name or used more accurate rounding or something of that ilk I'd probably agree with you. Whether programs are cancelled vs have funded decreased some (+ other information from the linked article) is, to me, a substantial difference in understanding what negative impacts might be occurring as a result of actions of the DOGE.

From that article:

> Cutting back the control program by one-sixth would allow over one million lamprey to survive, McClinchey estimated. Those lampreys would eat nearly 5 million pounds of fish, equalling $105 million in lost economic output and potential, far outstripping the cost of the workers’ salaries.

Oh good, they are just arbitrarily risking it being ineffective. My bad. I read a similar article to the one you link that I think didn't have the numbers, just talked about cutting the staff of the two locations.