HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post

01-28-2003 | 07:05 PM

#16

TJD

Fork Horn

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 381

Likes: 0

From: Sussex WI

RE: NRB meeting

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Ok TJD, you've lost me with this last rambling text.
Nowhere in any of your post do you offer constructive ideas nor demonatrate that you understand what the DNR is trying to do.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>Hmmm...did I go beyond your 30 second attention span? Sorry! Let's try this again...

1. DNR in July: "We need to ban baiting because we think it can increase the spread of CWD."/DNR now: Allow in in "The Zone" so that our 2.5% infection rate can grow.
2. DNR in July: "You actually have a better chance of seeing and killing deer WITHOUT baiting."/ DNR now: Baiting is needed in "the zone" to increase the harvest.

It appears it is the DNR that doesn't know what it's trying to do...

You have yet to address the contradiction in concrete terms, other than some make-believe parable that is in contadiction with the DNR's own fact sheet on the subject. Again, show the factual basis for the change, logs! If, according to what the DNR said in July, baiting can lead to an increased chance of the spread of CWD, AND can lead to a decreased chance of deer harvest (or at best no increase), show me the factual basis for the change....anywhere. Simple enough for ya? It should be simple enough for the DNR, but so far they haven't done that either, so I'm not suprised you couldn't address it. So go ahead, let's see your factual response...

...now slowly, going back a couple posts...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You have not answered my question as to your quailifications as a wildlife manager. I take it your just a hot head who has all the answers, knows more than anybody and everybody but I'll bet you have to go to work everyday for someone else.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> I have no idea what the second part of that is supposed to indicate. Actually own my own business, and if I had so-called experts like some of the DNR "experts" working for me that decided how to handle the CWD issue and get the lack of results they got, they'd be gone in a heartbeat. Maybe you put your finger on the problem though. The DNR is supposed to work for us, but have a Napoleon complex that doesn't allow them to admit their mistakes. BTW, do you ever have opinions on foreign policy, taxes, crime, etc.? Do you even VOTE? Or do you simply smile and nod your head on those issues to because the "experts" are handling things? Like I said before, how's all that Enron stock doing that the "experts" told you to buy?

Since you simply choose to not respond to any of the facts presented in the previous post, I'll actually bite on your "constructive ideas" line in an attempt to move things along. Not that the DNR is ever interested in what hunters really think, or ever acts on the input or response they get at the public meetings, but here it goes on a few issues with regard to CWD:

1) Get rid of Earn-a-Buck for good. It was a colossal failure in the zone and discouraged hunters from taking the field. Stop pissing off the majority of your "game management tool", the hunter, by putting it in place. Sounds like they may have actually wised up on this one, but I'll believe it when I see it. Keep it up and next year you'll see similar meager results.

2) Stop talking out of both sides of your departmental hind ends. Don't go out and say "Don't worry about CWD; the meat is safe." and then put on hasmat suits while taking testing samples for CWD. Be consistent on the issues; fail to do so and don't expect hunters to trust your credibility. Here's an easy fact to bear in mind: lose your credibility as an agency, any you'll lose funding.

3) Stop all of the nonsensical talk about shooting 25,000 deer in the Zone. It ain't realistic, causes huge resentment among the landowners, and actually causes more hunters to stay home than enter the field. Make the goal population reduction, not some silliness about killing all of the deer in an area of 300 square miles. CWD has been in Wyoming and Colorado for 20+ years, and there are more deer in both states now than 20 years ago, without any "eradication zones. Knock off the hysteria, or expect the results in "the Zone" to continue being poor.

4) Stop playing games with the rules. If you need to make a rule change, provide facts to back it up, not talk cloaked in inprecision like "we think". For example, if you want an increased harvest, tell us why you want to now consider a couple of drops of liquid scent as an item to ban, while at the same time letting gallons of corn be spilled in "The Zone".

5) Rather than making the public meetings a mere formality like a meeting of the old Soviet Politburo, actually act on hunters concerns. With regard to the CWD issue, the first act of the DNR should have been to go to the landowners and say "How would you like us to help YOU in solving this problem?" as opposed to "Here's what we've decided." Is there any wonder that the landowners aren't supportive of the DNR in that area?

There, how's that Logs? "Constructive" enough for you? But don't simply stop here. As I said before, get some of the posters on the forums here who live in "The Zone" and ask them how credible the DNR has been on the subject. Of course, be prepared to learn that they have even less faith in the DNR's ability to handle the situation than I do. Then, try going back and responding with facts to the points presented in the earlier posts...unless a review of the facts might shake your faith in the infallibility of the DNR.

Edited by - TJD on 01/28/2003 21:52:17

Reply

0