HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR

01-13-2002 | 09:46 AM

#33

TJD

Fork Horn

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 381

Likes: 0

From: Sussex WI

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How about you?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Well,
I've attended the local meetings where possible and voiced my opinion as necessary.
I've written letters to the legislators on various committees and my on reps here to let them know how I feel.
I have been very careful to put hunters in the best light when speaking to those who don't hunt.

Can't say I've done as much as I could or wanted to, but, yes I have acted where possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I don't base MY opinion on just my gut feeling from what I see in a limited area. That is just stupid.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Agreed. My opinion is not just based on what I see (see one of my previous posts in that regard if you'd like). I base it on the figures that the DNR themselves put out, as well as some of the statements made in the press as well as at various meetings throughout the state.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Now you are entitled to you opinion and I respect that.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Ditto!
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I don't think you are as quaulifed as the DNR, nor have the resourse of the DNR to pass judgement on them as you have.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> I definitely agree with the first part of your statement; not sure about part two. I also don't have the resources to know for sure that gun control doesn't work either. Depending on the set of stats you want to focus on (in a vacuum), I could make the argument either way. That mean that I would not vote out an anti-gunner, since I cannot know with certainty that their policies are useless in controlling crime? Back to your quote about being entitled to an opinion: if the DNR can show that people like me who are skeptical of their figures are wrong, all I ask is that they do so!

Logs, my skepticism of the DNR took hold over time. No, I don't expect perfection from them. But just like with any organization, they need to be critical of their own methods and be willing to put them to the test. That is the only way that improvement ever takes place. But during Deer 2000, they stated that they were willing to have an outside audit of their estimates, then quickly stated that they think all the methods used to check their method are faulty. What are they so afraid of?
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I don't agree with everything that the DNR does and I've said that many times.
I know Im less qualified than they are to accomplish the task they are required to do.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>Agreed! That doesn't mean that the DNR can't try to improve upon its methods of sampling or its methods of controlling the harvest, does it? Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

Logs,all I am saying is that the DNR should try to do a better job of being consistent. Try to do a better job of avoiding the "boom/bust" deer cycles of the past, which they are at least partly responsible for. Don't spew out nonsense like in the article above, when it is obvious that the last similar season mentioned had a record harvest.

Is that too much to ask?

Logs, I'm glad to see that you are involved! I'd rather see that than see ten posts supporting my view from people who think involvement means buying a license.

Reply

0