NRB meeting
01-29-2003 | 08:28 AM
#21
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,540
Likes: 0
From:
RE: NRB meeting
TJD,There, how's that Logs? "Constructive" enough for you? Yes, you actually got around to offering some ideas. Thank you.
Awareness of CWD is realitively new to WI and even thought it has existed in other states it has not been address there in the same manner as here because it is a different environment, a lesser degree of concern to the economy and a choice to proceed differently.
I agree that a lot of the hunters are unhappy with the situation and the land owners resent many of the actions of the DNR. Thats natural and understandable. I'd imagine if they were told they had cancer they would be unhappy and if it cause them to have a limb cut off to save thier life, would it be the doctor fault? Well thats the way it was treated for years until they learn better on how to deal with it. Saved a lot of lives.
This is a difficult problem to solve and like I said the DNR doesn't have all the answers, will make some mistakes but at this point in time they have the best information, greatest resources and are not that "emotional" about the situation. They in my opinion are the professionals.You make a good example of the above when you refer to the possible termination of the earn a buck.
As the DNR moves forward trying to deal with this they will be changing rules as needed. I don't see that as playing games. I see it as listening to the public, possibly recognizing mistakes and finding other avenues to explore.
The hazmat suit, come on, you own you own business and I have to explain this to you. I don't think so.
I think the public meanings are useful and so does the DNR. You have taken great delight in this image you have created in your mind of me as a sheep that simply goes along and does not take an active part in the process. If that makes you feel better fine.
I attend DNR meanings, travel to Madison for meeting with my Representative and Im very active in politics. I've actually voted in every election and primary that has occurred since I've been able to vote. Even when Im out of state or the country I vote by absentee ballot. I have meet some other member of this board at meanings, may have even seen you . Don't really know or care. It's good that hunters attend.
This country and state are not ruled by popular opinion, at lease the technical things. How many state buget meeting have you attended? If we did things based on popular opinion nothing would ever get done. We elect people who appoint people who get input from the public, combine that with scientific evidence and proceed. Sometimes it's popular and sucessful and other times it's not. Im a strong believer in ..Lead, Follow or Get Out of the way. I've gone to the meetings, listen to the DNR, understood most of what was said, wasn't clear on some of the ideas, I offered my two cent and now I want to see the process move forward.
Since I know the limits of my qualifications in thia area, unless I have something specific, Im not about to get in the way.
And it is beyond my imagination how you can not distingish between the effects of baiting during a state wide deer season and the effects of baiting in the zone for a totally different goal under different conditons and different methods of hunting.
Nick, I hope all the right choices are made and when this is all over you still have a good deer population in you area. Good luck
wdhc, You have to think these people are real idiots if you believe your last post. Almost every Law Enforcement Officer in the State has to qualify with 00 buck. No I'll leave it at that, the rest of your post does not qualify for a response.
Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html
Awareness of CWD is realitively new to WI and even thought it has existed in other states it has not been address there in the same manner as here because it is a different environment, a lesser degree of concern to the economy and a choice to proceed differently.
I agree that a lot of the hunters are unhappy with the situation and the land owners resent many of the actions of the DNR. Thats natural and understandable. I'd imagine if they were told they had cancer they would be unhappy and if it cause them to have a limb cut off to save thier life, would it be the doctor fault? Well thats the way it was treated for years until they learn better on how to deal with it. Saved a lot of lives.
This is a difficult problem to solve and like I said the DNR doesn't have all the answers, will make some mistakes but at this point in time they have the best information, greatest resources and are not that "emotional" about the situation. They in my opinion are the professionals.You make a good example of the above when you refer to the possible termination of the earn a buck.
As the DNR moves forward trying to deal with this they will be changing rules as needed. I don't see that as playing games. I see it as listening to the public, possibly recognizing mistakes and finding other avenues to explore.
The hazmat suit, come on, you own you own business and I have to explain this to you. I don't think so.
I think the public meanings are useful and so does the DNR. You have taken great delight in this image you have created in your mind of me as a sheep that simply goes along and does not take an active part in the process. If that makes you feel better fine.
I attend DNR meanings, travel to Madison for meeting with my Representative and Im very active in politics. I've actually voted in every election and primary that has occurred since I've been able to vote. Even when Im out of state or the country I vote by absentee ballot. I have meet some other member of this board at meanings, may have even seen you . Don't really know or care. It's good that hunters attend.
This country and state are not ruled by popular opinion, at lease the technical things. How many state buget meeting have you attended? If we did things based on popular opinion nothing would ever get done. We elect people who appoint people who get input from the public, combine that with scientific evidence and proceed. Sometimes it's popular and sucessful and other times it's not. Im a strong believer in ..Lead, Follow or Get Out of the way. I've gone to the meetings, listen to the DNR, understood most of what was said, wasn't clear on some of the ideas, I offered my two cent and now I want to see the process move forward.
Since I know the limits of my qualifications in thia area, unless I have something specific, Im not about to get in the way.
And it is beyond my imagination how you can not distingish between the effects of baiting during a state wide deer season and the effects of baiting in the zone for a totally different goal under different conditons and different methods of hunting.
Nick, I hope all the right choices are made and when this is all over you still have a good deer population in you area. Good luck
wdhc, You have to think these people are real idiots if you believe your last post. Almost every Law Enforcement Officer in the State has to qualify with 00 buck. No I'll leave it at that, the rest of your post does not qualify for a response.
Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html
01-29-2003 | 05:03 PM
#22
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
From: Sussex WI
RE: NRB meeting
I agree with Nick and Cheese-head. Time to move on. Logs, let's drop the baiting issue; you are somehow certain that the DNR is right...how I don't know...and I'm even more certain that they are wrong. I'll leave it at that...
Logs, glad to see that you are involved, as am I. It had seemed from your replies that you simply delegated all thought to the so-called experts you mentioned. Democracy doesn't work that way; if it did we would have done like the Romans and simply allowed for an Emperor to make our decisions for us. If the DNR can make a plausible case, then they should have no problem backing their assertions with a facutal basis. If they do that, then yes, they will have my support, as well as the support of an overwhelming number of hunters. But as I alluded to before, if the DNR comes up with dumb ideas, I will respond in kind and not simply nod my head in affirmation. I would hope everyone would take the same approach, and not simply whistle in the dark.
Work doesn't allow me to go to Madison for meetings, but I have attended plenty of the DNR dog and pony shows in this area. Which is precisely WHY I don't find them at all useful. If as you say the DNR values the input of those who attend, they sure have a funny way of showing it. The DNR, as a public agency, needs to be more accountable to public relations, not simply to implementing theoretical practices without regard to public opinion. May not be the way a scientist would want to do things in a perfect world, but this ain't a perfect world.
Compromise is a fact of life, and somehow the DNR has forgotten that. Earn-A-Buck is just one example of that thought process. Hunters hated it from Day 1, but the DNR went ahead an stuck it in the regs. Now in "The Zone", they finally found just how much it was resented. When the DNR itself states repeatedly that hunters are it's "greatest deer managment tool", they had better give equal attention to the PR aspects of decisions. They aren't doing that, at least not NEARLY enough. During the Deer 2000 survey, only 18% of the respondents had a "great deal" of confidence in the DNR's ability to manage the deer herd. 18%!!! By any measure, that indicates they have a problem. And it certainly indicates that I am not alone in my displeasure and lack of confidence in their ability. Disagreeing with decisions doesn't imply "whining" or imply the "we know better". It implies that the DNR has done a poor job of informing the public of the "Why" of their decisions.
Speaking of PR, I want to go back to WDHC's point on the original post of the thread: <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Section 25. NR 10.07(1)(a) is amended to read.
NR 10.07(1)(a)
1. Deer may be shot from aircraft only between December 1 and the following April 15.
6. Notwithstanding s. NR 10.09(1)(a)2., any person authorized by the department to shoot deer from or with the aid of an aircraft pursuant to this paragraph, may use shot shells loaded with shot larger than no. BB to shoot deer.
Our concern: This says the DNR can shoot at deer from a helicopter with buckshot. More likely crippling than killing deer. Not to mention the safety of people and animals!<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote> Let's forget about the safety issue for one second. From a PR standpoint, why in gods name would you even start talking about shooting deer from a helicopter in an area around Mt. Horeb? Lyndon is right: from a PR standpoint that is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard of. The increase in kill would be miniscule. This isn't some uninhabited 12,000 acre ranch in Texas we're talking about. This is cornfields, woods, towns, homes....you name it. Back to the safety issue: "sharpshooter" or not, shooting a deer from a loud helicopter, buffeted by wind, etc. isn't a good idea, to say the least. How many of these "sharpshooters" have qualified shooting from aircraft? What is their kill ratio from aircraft? If they cannot answer that, then why do it?
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>. I've gone to the meetings, listen to the DNR, understood most of what was said, wasn't clear on some of the ideas, I offered my two cent and now I want to see the process move forward.
Since I know the limits of my qualifications in thia area, unless I have something specific, Im not about to get in the way.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote> Logs, to me it's not about "getting in the way". It's about trying to understand the way. It's about the DNR acting as a partner with hunters and landowners, instead of coming across like it's there way or nothing. The poll numbers I indicated imply that their attitude is much more of the latter than of the former. That needs to change...now! In many ways, the DNR is their own worst enemy. With CWD, they need our help. With the population issue as a whole, they need our help. If they act more as partners and start from the premise of "how can we assist our greatest management tool?" then they will have our help and support. If not, expect that confidence level in the DNR to remain pathetically low. Which in turn will mean less money, less cooperation, and an even less effective DNR.
Edited by - TJD on 01/29/2003 18:10:00
Logs, glad to see that you are involved, as am I. It had seemed from your replies that you simply delegated all thought to the so-called experts you mentioned. Democracy doesn't work that way; if it did we would have done like the Romans and simply allowed for an Emperor to make our decisions for us. If the DNR can make a plausible case, then they should have no problem backing their assertions with a facutal basis. If they do that, then yes, they will have my support, as well as the support of an overwhelming number of hunters. But as I alluded to before, if the DNR comes up with dumb ideas, I will respond in kind and not simply nod my head in affirmation. I would hope everyone would take the same approach, and not simply whistle in the dark.
Work doesn't allow me to go to Madison for meetings, but I have attended plenty of the DNR dog and pony shows in this area. Which is precisely WHY I don't find them at all useful. If as you say the DNR values the input of those who attend, they sure have a funny way of showing it. The DNR, as a public agency, needs to be more accountable to public relations, not simply to implementing theoretical practices without regard to public opinion. May not be the way a scientist would want to do things in a perfect world, but this ain't a perfect world.
Compromise is a fact of life, and somehow the DNR has forgotten that. Earn-A-Buck is just one example of that thought process. Hunters hated it from Day 1, but the DNR went ahead an stuck it in the regs. Now in "The Zone", they finally found just how much it was resented. When the DNR itself states repeatedly that hunters are it's "greatest deer managment tool", they had better give equal attention to the PR aspects of decisions. They aren't doing that, at least not NEARLY enough. During the Deer 2000 survey, only 18% of the respondents had a "great deal" of confidence in the DNR's ability to manage the deer herd. 18%!!! By any measure, that indicates they have a problem. And it certainly indicates that I am not alone in my displeasure and lack of confidence in their ability. Disagreeing with decisions doesn't imply "whining" or imply the "we know better". It implies that the DNR has done a poor job of informing the public of the "Why" of their decisions.
Speaking of PR, I want to go back to WDHC's point on the original post of the thread: <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Section 25. NR 10.07(1)(a) is amended to read.
NR 10.07(1)(a)
1. Deer may be shot from aircraft only between December 1 and the following April 15.
6. Notwithstanding s. NR 10.09(1)(a)2., any person authorized by the department to shoot deer from or with the aid of an aircraft pursuant to this paragraph, may use shot shells loaded with shot larger than no. BB to shoot deer.
Our concern: This says the DNR can shoot at deer from a helicopter with buckshot. More likely crippling than killing deer. Not to mention the safety of people and animals!<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote> Let's forget about the safety issue for one second. From a PR standpoint, why in gods name would you even start talking about shooting deer from a helicopter in an area around Mt. Horeb? Lyndon is right: from a PR standpoint that is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard of. The increase in kill would be miniscule. This isn't some uninhabited 12,000 acre ranch in Texas we're talking about. This is cornfields, woods, towns, homes....you name it. Back to the safety issue: "sharpshooter" or not, shooting a deer from a loud helicopter, buffeted by wind, etc. isn't a good idea, to say the least. How many of these "sharpshooters" have qualified shooting from aircraft? What is their kill ratio from aircraft? If they cannot answer that, then why do it?
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>. I've gone to the meetings, listen to the DNR, understood most of what was said, wasn't clear on some of the ideas, I offered my two cent and now I want to see the process move forward.
Since I know the limits of my qualifications in thia area, unless I have something specific, Im not about to get in the way.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote> Logs, to me it's not about "getting in the way". It's about trying to understand the way. It's about the DNR acting as a partner with hunters and landowners, instead of coming across like it's there way or nothing. The poll numbers I indicated imply that their attitude is much more of the latter than of the former. That needs to change...now! In many ways, the DNR is their own worst enemy. With CWD, they need our help. With the population issue as a whole, they need our help. If they act more as partners and start from the premise of "how can we assist our greatest management tool?" then they will have our help and support. If not, expect that confidence level in the DNR to remain pathetically low. Which in turn will mean less money, less cooperation, and an even less effective DNR.
Edited by - TJD on 01/29/2003 18:10:00
01-29-2003 | 06:42 PM
#23
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,540
Likes: 0
From:
RE: NRB meeting
TJD, have a nice day.
Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html
Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html
01-31-2003 | 11:01 PM
#24
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From: waukesha wi USA
RE: NRB meeting
TJD, It couldn't have been explained any better.
Logs, we are not only watchdogs, but we offer solutions and ideas, as well. We offered a plan for eradication but it was ignored. (I really believe it was better)
In September, we started running ads on the Packer Radio Network, telling people to ignore the media hype and get out to hunt. Long before whitetails unlimited or anyone else.
Happy hunting
Logs, we are not only watchdogs, but we offer solutions and ideas, as well. We offered a plan for eradication but it was ignored. (I really believe it was better)
In September, we started running ads on the Packer Radio Network, telling people to ignore the media hype and get out to hunt. Long before whitetails unlimited or anyone else.
Happy hunting
