RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

Hey ....there's a threat I can live with.

Go ahead.....have the thread closed. To think I (and others) give that much of a rat's axx what you think is......well.....it's hysterical. I try to give you sound advice.....and all you want to do is insult.

I wish you WOULD go back and just read to yourself what you're saying. You're NOT coming across as very diplomatic OR intelligent (not that I'm a Farbman "plant" or anything).

You started the thread. It's your ball. Take it on home.

Jeff

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

Oh what did I miss?!?

More of the same, I see. Thread closing threats, this just gets better and better.

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

THis has gone from ridiculous to absurd.Yes, youreplied line by line, nbut your responses showed you don't have a clue as to what I actually said.You are completely wrong about my secondary remarks about PETA, etc. They were sarcasm completely, not directed at anyone in particular, and someone took it persnal so I made a clarification. Talk about inconsistent. One minute I work with him every day,and now I don't know the man. And no, I am speaking directly from my convos, and emails with the man--nothing more , nothing less-never claimed anything that you keep trying to attribute to me. I have made a suggestion, out of a spirit of cooperation with others that have concerns, to present their ideas directly to DF when I meet with him face to face. You sound like no matter what, you are just aiming to be contentious toward anyone, and anything. I have not resorted to insults, so you can toss out that one while you are at it,as well. As for your silly remarks about being 'drafted',(whatever that means),I simplyinitiated contactwith him by email, and then by phone after he requested--just like many others have. I made an offer to present well documented, well founded, real complaints ,with names, to demonstrate the volume of opposition that he is receiving from this particular forum, and for whatever reason, of which I have several theories, (but I will refrain from jumping to conclusions)you have a problem , based on paranoidal, unfounded, and totally off the mark conclusions. You have been wrong about my motives,my methods,and my actions. I am not posturing about anything. I got involved out of concern about the ramifications of how this would affect the future of something important to me, and all you can do is to continue with your amateur psychology, attempting to speak as if you have a clue about me and my position, You haven't even been close in your asessment . Why don't you spend some time doing something about this problem, rather than spending your time attempting to figure me out--and doing a very poor job of it at that.
I don't have time to continue to restate my case to someone not interested in anything more than bickering about his misperceptions, and who's reading between the line skills are in desperate need of correcting.

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

You have hit the nail on the head WH! 95% don't have all the facts, and neither do I! That is exactly why I am attempting to get closer to the situation, so that the objections are founded and based on fact, rather than simply reaction fueled only by emotion. You are not inconsistent in your opposition, but you said yourself that you wanted open debate, but now that I ,and others ,offer a contrasting opinion on how to approach, you are being anything but open . We are on the same page in our opposition, and differ in how we want to deal with this. I am asking for restraint, and control of the emotional side. Have you ever heard of the scripture verse that says to be angry, and sin not? That is what I am talking about. By all means , I am angry, and passionate, but it doesn't acomplish anything to charge in unprepared, guns ablazing( that is a pun before someone takes it literally like the reference to PETA,etc.;)) I hasve learned , a long time ago, by experience, that before you charge in making complaints, accusations, and pointing fingers, that you need to gather all th efacts before you ever say a word. And once you speak, you need to be able to back it up.I have listened to DF, and I have THEN, voiced my concerns, and why. He told me , in the last call I had with him, that he had never thought about some of the issues that I raised. I let him state his case, and then I deliberately,methodically , line by line, precept upon precept spelled out the reasons why there were flaws in his 'vision', and he admitted as such( onsome issues). There was no compromising in my replies or any hint of backing down. You don't have to be loud and boisterous to get a point across. The truth will speak for itself. I explained to him, that his darting had been an implied message that ,somehow, that it is something to be ashamed of that we kill animals, and that there needs to be an unapologetic educational process to clarify that hunting is legitimate, rather than to attempt to appease with an alternative such as darting. I spoke of the need for ethics, fair chase, etc. as opposed to the competition aspect, and he admitted tha there needed to be a greater emphasis there.
This is simply all I am trying to say. I am not setting myself up as a sole representative for this or any other matter. I added my thoughts on how I have developed my , personal approach to resolving difficult and serious, emotionally charged issues. It isn't something that just popped into my head, but is the result of having run a business for 23 years, raising 3 sons(which Iam still in the process), handling difficult family matters( have you ever had to confront a child molester who had repeatedly been guilty of assaulting your 8 year old neice, counsel with a neice that has 3 kids, yet has abandoned them to feed her drug habit,and then take in her son, and explain to him why his Mom has abandoned him,deal with an alcoholic family member over a several year period,be involved in a 2 1/2 year court battle over a son falsely charged with vehicular manslaughter)--shall I continue? There is always more to an issue than first impressions . You have to do some digging and some fact finding first, the develop your case, and systematically dismantle it with fact. You let your passion drive you to do the hard part. It's easy to just jump right in,but as the saying goes, you need to look before you leap, because you need to know where you are going to land.

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

Most of us are intelligent enough to make an assessment of what we've heard in the various articles written by credible sources. I'm sure you find that impossible.

Once again, you posture yourself as the expert and others as somehow inept. Of course yours posts just wouldn't be complete without a bit of campaigning...

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Its interesting to see what some people do given enough rope...



And once again, no one suggested that anyone should. More hyperbole and exaggeration. But if you're trying to make others look foolish that you might puff yourself up as the voice of reason...and showing the opposite as a result...mission accomplished.

Lol, do you have any idea how many times you talked about your supposed qualifications on this thread? Go back and look. It's really comical.:D:D:D

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

Fact WHA was going to use drugs to tranq Deer
Fact FDA and MI DNR had a meeting and fond this to be Illegal
Fact Farban(WHA) quickly change their format after hearing what the FDA and MI DNR were going to do.

WHA is just like every other lame brain hunting show now. I sure the heck do not need to talk to Farbman to understand the above.

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

Ghemry, be careful. You'll be accused of "shouting and screaming.":D:D:D

Rather than continue watching our fellow board member campaign for a position as the spokesman for this organization, let's look at what others have to say...in no uncertain terms and without pandering to the outfit.


http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_89449.asp

The WHA has been the subject of considerable discussion, criticism and condemnation from a wide cross-section of the outdoor community. From the National Shooting Sports Foundation to the Quality Deer Management Association, leaders have stepped forward to condemn the idea of Michigan entrepreneur and hunting enthusiast David Farbman as everything from "cruel" to "another huckster's bad idea"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ronjudd/2003153678_nwwtrailmix27.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/fljournal/index.ssf?/base/news-38/1156429211251290.xml&coll=5

“Nonhunters may scratch their heads over why a dead deer is better than a drugged deer”

Look at the perfect Catch 22 created by this wonderful “catch and release” idea which will apparently take place on a fenced 1000 “ranch.” If you think the idea of darting deer is ridiculous, PETA and others that do not know this sport will say you'd simply prefer them dead. Nice, real nice.


http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060821/SPORTS07/608210310/1132/SPORTS0202

Hmmm. August 21st, eh? Glad to see this has been carefully thought through.

http://www.qdma.com/pdf/QDMA_Opposes_WHA.pdf

“There are too many objectionable issues associated with this program to be something the QDMA can support – even if it is substantially modified,” Murphy said. “Deer hunting is not a competitive sport, nor is it similar to bass fishing or any form of angling where competition can and does occur.”
Simply put, WHA’s program violates many elements of QDMA’s mission of ethical hunting, sound deer management and preservation of the deer-hunting heritage – values shared by the vast majority of deer hunters in North America.”

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

You really don't get it . I am not campaigning for anything.That is yourmisguided takeon this,and very untrue.I was and am in process pf making my approach long before I presented it here. And I am not seeking your permission or anyone elses for that matter to handle this in the manner I have described. And you have ,once again, made my point for me. All of these are reasonable , well researched, credible objections ,delivered with credibility and clarity--all of which you lack.You don't place articles in newspapers without first making sure you know what you are talking about, and without first getting your facts straight.Also , when you do,you still need to be composed and civil with with your words. Thanks for, once agin proving my point.

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??????hmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm????:eek:

RE: A hunter's stance on the WHA
 

The only thing comical about this is just how far off you are in your asessment of me, and your armchair psychology. I won't even venture a guess as to what your true motive is, but i would imagine that it has something to do with be a very, very insecure person. I have a sick father to attend to, and a business to run, so I think I will take my 'campaign' elsewhere. I'm sure if you look at all the topics on this forum, you can find another one to 'analyze'! Good luck with that!:eek:Just don't quit your day job first--if you have one.