NRB meeting

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

01-28-2003 | 08:43 AM

#11

logs

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 2,540

Likes: 0

From:

RE: NRB meeting

Sky103. Actually I agree with some of what you say.
I don't think the DNR is perfect nor right all the time. But the points made at the being of this thread lack clear thought from my view point.
The writer objects to everything but gives no foundation of substance to support his attacks. They are not just opinions they are attacks.

Example:How is shooting deer from a helicopter with a shotgun by qualified marksmen a danger to other animals and people short of a helicopter crash. That is just Chicken Little the sky is falling nonsense.

Different states are addressing their problems with CWD in different ways that suit thier enviorment, degree of concern, extent of problem and game management style. WI has taken this aproach and is open to the public the entire way. Unfortunately not all the public is able to comprehend or understand the complexity of the situation.
I really don't have my head in the sand or up my butt. I do however believe that the DNR is interested in solving this problem, they are looking at every option and since no one on this board has come forward with any evidence that they are more qualified I'll keep following the ideas of the DNR and the experts on the subject.

Im always open to well thought out ideas and debate but that isn't happening here and I admit I got draw into the childish cr@p but I thought it was necessary to demonstrate the folly at the time.

Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html

01-28-2003 | 04:26 PM

#12

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>Your opinion is yours but your attack on the DNR is wrong. They do know more than you do.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> You must have owned a lot of Enron stock, logs. I'm certain from reading this post that you would just merrily go along buying because "experts" like Jeffrey Skilling and the like told you it was a great idea. If the DNR is so "expert" in this regard, they should have no problem presenting facts to back up their "expertise". Yet they present nothing more than contradictions and half-stories. So far, that is exactly what you have done as well, logs.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>OK, it is just you and I here debating this and your upset because you don't understand complex subjects.
You apparently can not distingish the eradication zone, the DNRs goal there from a regular deer season and the objective of total management.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Hmmm? <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> can not distingish the eradication zone, the DNRs goal there from a regular deer season and the objective of total management<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Now who is reading between the lines? Do they offer courses in "DNR Interpretation" that only you have taken?

As for the first part, since you did not address even one single fact addressed in my previous post regarding the DNR's own stance on the subject of baiting, you must be talking about yourself with regard to complex subjects. Tell you what, between interludes at work saying "You want fries with that?", give it a try. Complexity to you must be trying to think outside the box, and actually question what the DNR says. Really, its simple. First they say one thing and then do another. It's there as plain as day. The DNR's own words! Yet here it is you that is trying to read between the lines and place allusions as to what the DNR "means" now with regard to the CWD zone. One thing I agree with you on is your admission of your getting childish. I guess I should have expected as much from someone so firmly entrenched in the Amen Chorus of the DNR. Or maybe it's those hormone treatments. Problems with hot flashes?...Try another Doctor. Oh that's right! You believe the first story you hear...

But hey, keep showing us why someone as unarmed as you should bother to fight a battle of wits. You have a choice: present facts to back your positions...which you have failed to do so far..., or continue posts like the ones above that make it seem as if you are writing on the bathroom wall in high school. The choice is yours; I'll make rebuttals either way. But since you've decided to slide down the slope of the latter...

If it wasn't so sad, I'd get a good laugh out of the DNR's actions and your defense of them. Basically they have contradicted themselves at least twice
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.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Now same situation but now we want to harvest all the deer on these three parcel and we have month to do accopmlish it. This is being done because some deer have a deadly illness and there is no know why to contian it. The land owners are allowed to kill all the deer. layzhunter hunts over his feeder and kills all the deer in 3 months. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Your post about the three hunters also CONTRADICTS the very points the DNR made in the release last July regarding the baiting issue. If you'd care to retrieve the entire thing and look for yourself, be my guest. And take a dose of your own advice...assuming of course you care to read what you yourself have written...DON'T TRY READING BETWEEN THE LINES OR READ ANYTHING INTO IT! Got it? Let's start with this key line. <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The difference in success rates among gun hunters with and without bait is negligible.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> GOT IT??? "AMONG HUNTERS WHO BAIT"!!! Had to make that big like the words in those "See Spot Run" books might get to read in a couple years. Not "not effective for the overall hunt" as you wrote. The effect is "negligible" for hunters that bait. So for a "negligible difference" in success, tell us how baiting will work, contradicting the findings of your almighty DNR? In or out of the Zone. Go for it!

Proof, not little stories, parables....PROOF! Here's a big word for you...might wanna ask an adult what I mean...give us some statistics to show how this will increase the harvest in the zone. Tell us how you will contradict the DNR's own parables about how baiting actually decreases your chances of even seeing deer by making them more nocturnal. Tell us how smart it really is to increase the chance of an increase in incidence of CWD by potentially increasing deer-to-deer contact thru baiting. And by the way, we are gonna hold ya to your own standard...can't read anything into what's written. The DNR is contradicting their own lines, Zone or no Zone. Plain and simple. Unless of course you are prepared to admit that the DNR made up their own facts back in July. You make the call! Either they were right in July, or they are wrong now. You make the call

Want some more facts? The DNR did everyting they could to alienate hunters in the zone. Want proof? Look at the harvest figures in the area, even with all of the special dumb-hunts starting in the Summer. Call that a success? Even close? A whopping 8,000 deer out of how many they wanted to get? 25,000. Yeah, the DNR has done such a magificent job that the harvest was right about what it was last year, even though there were an additional 60+ days to hunt with firearms. WOOOWE! Want some input as to how "open to the public" the DNR has been with regard to CWD? How about the poll in early November showing that only about 1/3 of landowners in the Zone were going to cooperate with the DNR's slaughter. This after six months of trying to "sell" hunters on their plan. Great sales job there, huh? Not that you are one to ever let facts confuse you, but try asking some of the people on this board who live in the zone about how "open" the DNR has been? Ask guys like Nub or others? Or are you afraid of the answer? By the way, you yourself have presented NOTHING in the way of facts. I can guess why...they don't support your contentions!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The 8,000 deer killed in the eradication zone are the equivalent of a yearly fawn crop in the area, said Tom Hauge, the DNR's director of wildlife management. That means the number killed so far will likely be replaced when does give birth this spring. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Gee, what a success! With all that "openness", what went wrong?

Edited by - TJD on 01/28/2003 19:07:38

01-28-2003 | 05:39 PM

#13

lyndon38

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 4

Likes: 0

From: lyndon station wi USA

RE: NRB meeting

wdhc: Why was your testimony ruled out of order by DNR staff? Would assume the Board would rule it out of order..not DNR staffers. Regardless...why was it ruled out of order?

Registration: Agree...deer should not leave the intensive harvest zone.

Baiting/feeding: would assume that under par. (b) that food plots, and baiting for bears is not illegal?

Aircraft: WDHC went to easy on this one. Cant wait to see the first video on the nightly news. They'll proably even use the feared black helicopter with government sharpshooters. Yep, this is gonna win over the general public. Bambi with his tongue hanging out, running from the black helicopter as they drive him out of the woods, and into the sights of the sharpshooters.

Official State Duties: what is the DNR's "official duties". Is it as broad as their mission statement.. are they spelled out in detail somewhere? Why go through with these proposed rule changes, if you dont intend to follow all..or some of them?

Nuisance animals: see "aircraft comments ". Another stroke of pr genius.

01-28-2003 | 06:17 PM

#14

TJD

Fork Horn

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 381

Likes: 0

From: Sussex WI

RE: NRB meeting

Lyndon,

I wouldn't be as certain on the issue of food plots. During the Deer 2000 meetings, one of the early proposals floated regarded food plots as the same as baiting...believe it or not! The proposal was shelved, since it there was no agreement on whether or not it was like baiting, and the DNR had no idea as to how to feasibly enforce such a ban. But that is exactly WHY clarity as to what these proposals mean is crucial.

01-28-2003 | 06:27 PM

#15

logs

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 2,540

Likes: 0

From:

RE: NRB meeting

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.

You clearly can not comprehend the difference between the two bait items but you don't want to do so.

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.
I admit Im not an expert but unlike you I don't have the answers. Wait, no you haven't offered any answers.
Now none of this insulting of each other is producing anything of value so give it your best and try another post if you have any answers on the TJD way to handle CWD or get out of the way and let the experts handle it the best they can. Unlike you they are not perfect and don't know all the answers. They will make some mistakes but they have the interest of the entire state deer herd in mind, not their own little world. They will do the best they can but Im sure that will not be good enough for the likes of you.
Im curious, can you walk upright and eat with utensils, from your comment it sounds like you favor finger food like fries and such. Oh yes,I see you have some personal doubts about yourself here with all your talk of sex changes.

Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html

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

01-28-2003 | 08:01 PM

#17

wdhc

Thread Starter

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 45

Likes: 0

From: waukesha wi USA

RE: NRB meeting

Lyndon38, It seems the DNR slipped in this rule about a year ago with some other stuff. You know how that works.
This is a good one. IF there is some rule change that will go to public hearing(which is one of those feel good things because they aren't going to listen anyway), then the public can say NOTHING at the NRB meeting about the rule change. Is this a hypocrisy or what.

01-28-2003 | 08:19 PM

#18

wdhc

Thread Starter

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 45

Likes: 0

From: waukesha wi USA

RE: NRB meeting

Example:How is shooting deer from a helicopter with a shotgun by qualified marksmen a danger to other animals and people short of a helicopter crash. That is just Chicken Little the sky is falling nonsense.

1. How many marksmen have qualified with shotguns and buckshot?
2. How about bowhunters in trees?
3. How about horses or cattle going through fences? Who is going to be liable for that? The landowners?
4. How about hikers and walkers?

They want to shoot at them from December 1 to April 15, do you think everyone living will know this?

NOW, tell me what is nonsense...

01-28-2003 | 10:32 PM

#19

cheese-head

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 81

Likes: 0

From: Twin Creek Farm WI USA

RE: NRB meeting

Ok boys get your Kneehighs on we got our selves a good old fashion pissing match here.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> I Mean really do we have any of the right answers about CWD, _ell no We are just starting to learn about testing for it. I can say right now that I dont know what to think and I will leave it at that. Terry

(I can skin a buck or run a trout line)

01-29-2003 | 06:51 AM

#20

Deleted User

Banned

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 27,585

Likes: 0

[Deleted]

[Deleted by Admins]

Reply Share

First
Prev
2 / 3
Next
Last