|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 6, 2007 19:10:32 GMT -5
;D Oh how I would like to add a few things to a couple of comments, but I will keep it civil here. #1, cambygsp, I think you have every right to ask this. It is not like it ISN'T obvious to all who read the 3 main boards. I have read the 'claims' currently being made by 'some' to wards 'others'. I am betting on two things here: Somewhere, somehow, there is probably some slight truth to some of it in some cases, and it is almost guaranteed to be a GREAT DEAL less than is being implied. Just like the OOS claims. And the PCR claims. I can simply say that, for myself, the two subjects have several things in common: Making them legal hurts no one. They give no one an 'edge'. And I have yet to see one valid reason to oppose them or place restrictions on them that do not apply to other legal options. Both simple offer another 'alternative' method of harvesting deer. The deer taken with a pcr or crossbow is just as dead and will taste just as good as one taken with a muzzy, slugster, pistol or bow. And there are people who simply can't stand the thought of ANYONE legally using either of them regardless. I am in full support of both being legalized, even though I do not own, and have no desire to use, a crossbow. But I see no harm in allowing anyone who wishes to use one do so. As for how the people who support both are connected, I am also just guessing that most who are open to one are open to the other by the same reasoning. Not all, but a large portion. As for a solid answer, I would NORMALLY suggest asking the one making the claims. In this case, however, you would probably be wasting your time. I have been in full support of both from the beginning. And both will have my full support in any current or future debates.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jun 6, 2007 19:16:14 GMT -5
How are they connected? Is there something going on that I don't know about? I recently read where "crossbow lobbists" are the ones that got PCR's in ......... and that crossbows were next. Well, this is the first I have heard about it and was wanting someone to explain it to me. EDIT....
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Jun 6, 2007 19:33:42 GMT -5
How are they connected? Is there something going on that I don't know about? I recently read where "crossbow lobbists" are the ones that got PCR's in ......... and that crossbows were next. Well, this is the first I have heard about it and was wanting someone to explain it to me. EDITAnd where did you get all this information at? Is this factual or just your opinion? Out of all the comments received by the IDNR only 13 were out of state, not tell me how those 13 swayed our DNR to allow PCR's? How many of them were for crossbows too? h.h.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jun 6, 2007 19:38:29 GMT -5
[quote author=hornharvester board=campfire thread=1181149558 post=1181176422 And where did you get all this information at? Is this factual or just your opinion?
Out of all the comments received by the IDNR only 13 were out of state, not tell me how those 13 swayed our DNR to allow PCR's? How many of them were for crossbows too? h.h.[/quote][/color]
[glow=red,2,300]I couldn't agree more! Great questions![/glow]
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 6, 2007 19:39:14 GMT -5
I'm going to dance real carefully here ... so here goes. A couple of you are jumping on a long time feud between two people who both have put themselves (by choice) in a very public and vocal position. And honestly I think all of us really need to stay out of their battles with each other. Both have personal agendas, both are very stubborn on certain issues. I make that last statement with good intentions as WE ALL have agendas and can be quite stubborn, and that is not all bad. I personally agree with both of them on some issues and disagree with them on others. I take no sides between the two. This is my opinion and my opinion only PCR's and X-bows are in NO way related topics. It simply happens that one person disdains both and the other enjoys both. What each say in their own forums and in their own ways, right or wrong, is their business, not yours, mine, or anyone else's. Threads started like this simply fuel the fire of the war between the core groups of the three Indiana forums. It is stupid and pointless. I'm out of here on this topic. I hardly think it is 'stupid' or 'pointless'. These are public boards. And that MAKES it my business, your business and everyone elses. The ones making the mistake here are the ones making claims about others they can't substantiate. And doing it on a regular basis on public forums. Thats my take on it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Jun 6, 2007 19:46:20 GMT -5
Guys,
I talked to Chico and Im going against my better judgement and unlocking this post but I'll warn you right now to play by the rules or it will get locked again and someone will get a week or two off. h.h. WOW.. Imagine that! Timex/camby and the rest... You know who you have a beef with so why not just take it up with them in person/email/ or the other board?........... Oh wait, you cant post there and they can't post here I think? Is that right? SO you decide to sink to the same level as the very one(s) you so bitterly hate? COme on guys, stop acting like kids. If you got a problem with someone then be a man about it and talk to them directly or at least do it on a board were both postions can be heard. This behind the back crap needs to end............ Loooks like Chico took some time to think about it...... Perhaps others should do the same! In the last year, I see the combined strength of sportsmen falling apart. How stupid is that during a time when we need to unite...... I guess it doesn't matter anymore, it's all about ME right? Flame on about who said or did what! Timex I think you said it best. " If Joe is for it, I'm against it." Brilliant logic there!.......... This is like watching my 12 year old fight with his 17 year old brother.... A total waste of time and the only outcome will be a knot on somebodies head. Send me to the corner now H.H. If you wish....... I really don't give a dam anymore when I see threads like this. For the record: I supported PCR's.. I DID NOT support the way some tried to ram it through............ As far as crossbows go, I really didn't give a crap about them but I am now leaning to the anti side.......
|
|
|
Post by Harley on Jun 6, 2007 19:46:44 GMT -5
I will not hunt with a x-bow if they are made legal because I like my compound bow just fine and I do not see anything that the x-bow will do for me that I can't already do with my bow. Actually I see no advantage between the two at all. I also do not see why they are not legal for all of archery season other than your traditionalist have fought hard for many years to keep them out of the seasons. I think the playing field needs to be evened up and x-bows allowed through all of archery season. When that wagon comes through town I will be on it.
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 6, 2007 19:59:06 GMT -5
How are they connected? Is there something going on that I don't know about? I recently read where "crossbow lobbists" are the ones that got PCR's in ......... and that crossbows were next. Well, this is the first I have heard about it and was wanting someone to explain it to me. EDITWho are 'they' Greg? Woody supports both issues, and so do I. That makes two of us, so are 'we' the 'they' you refer to? All of the correspondence I have had with the IDNR has been published, and there has not been a single part of it concerning crossbows. And, what 'lobbyists' are you referring to? Sounds a lot like a 'conspiracy theory' Greg. For a drastic change of pace, what do you yourself actually see wrong with crossbows or PCR's Greg? What harm will either do in your opinion? Seriously. All I ever see you post is basically quotes or near quotes of someone else. I have never seen a single post where you stated what you had against either of these. Or why you think OBR is the long lost 11th commandment. I have asked you this before. And never got an answer that I can recall.
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Jun 6, 2007 20:06:01 GMT -5
if you have a problem with them then take it up with them instead of this crap............ Joe won't allow it.....I've been banned from that site several times because they can't stand to see the truth. I don't care what he posts, but he needs to stop posting Woody's name everytime he doesn't get his way on something. And YOU need to stop posting Joes name.... Right? I'm not sticking up for him but if you are going to "preach" fairness then why dont you live it? Just a thought........
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jun 6, 2007 20:09:07 GMT -5
And where did you get all this information at? Is this factual or just your opinion? Out of all the comments received by the IDNR only 13 were out of state, not tell me how those 13 swayed our DNR to allow PCR's? How many of them were for crossbows too? h.h. Is this factual or just your opinion? ?? Who said there where only 13 OUT of STATE comments...... Is this factual or just your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Jun 6, 2007 20:09:14 GMT -5
Guys lets please get back on topic and to the original question ask. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 6, 2007 20:14:44 GMT -5
Guys,
I talked to Chico and Im going against my better judgement and unlocking this post but I'll warn you right now to play by the rules or it will get locked again and someone will get a week or two off. h.h. WOW.. Imagine that! Timex/camby and the rest... You know who you have a beef with so why not just take it up with them in person/email/ or the other board?........... Oh wait, you cant post there and they can't post here I think? Is that right? SO you decide to sink to the same level as the very one(s) you so bitterly hate? ....... You have a PM.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Jun 6, 2007 20:17:47 GMT -5
[/quote]Is this factual or just your opinion? ?? Who said there where only 13 OUT of STATE comments...... Is this factual or just your opinion? [/quote] Since there has been much heated discussion regarding out-of-state residents offering comments on the PCR issue, I personally read through 141 pages of public comment in the NRC's 162-page report on the administrative rule changes.
I could only identify 13 out-of-state residents among the 464 people who commented on the PCR issue. That's less than 3% of those who commented. They are as follows:
JJ M. -- West Virginia (page 34)
Greg H. -- Ohio (page 35)
Jonathan S. -- No state listed, but says he's a non-resident (page 35)
John A. -- Maine (but owns & hunts land in Indiana) (page 36)
David M. -- Texas (hunts on family land here in Indiana) (page 59)
Toby B. -- No state listed (page 61)
Russell S. -- Virginia (former Indiana resident) (page 70)
Kevin W. -- Illinois (hunts Indiana) (page 105)
Warren W. -- Ohio (hunts Indiana) (page 107)
Michael R. -- Texas (page 124)
Timothy D. -- Ohio (page 125)
Dennis N. -- Kentucky (plans to hunt Indiana) (page 129)
Karl M. -- New Mexico (plans to hunt Indiana) (page 135) And if you want to read the whole thread..... huntingindiana.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=deerhunting&action=display&thread=1180131016&page=1
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Jun 6, 2007 20:19:07 GMT -5
How are they connected? Is there something going on that I don't know about? I recently read where "crossbow lobbists" are the ones that got PCR's in ......... and that crossbows were next. Well, this is the first I have heard about it and was wanting someone to explain it to me. EDITSee guys, I aint making this up.....there are several folks making these claims, one is the high ranking official of the states largest organized deer hunting group. is this really going on, like greghoper says? Gundude, for the SECOND time, I don't have a problem with anyone, this statement has been made by several folks, I want to know if it's true, you got any inside information?
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jun 6, 2007 20:26:56 GMT -5
Is this factual or just your opinion? ?? Who said there where only 13 OUT of STATE comments...... Is this factual or just your opinion? [/quote] Since there has been much heated discussion regarding out-of-state residents offering comments on the PCR issue, I personally read through 141 pages of public comment in the NRC's 162-page report on the administrative rule changes.
I could only identify 13 out-of-state residents among the 464 people who commented on the PCR issue. That's less than 3% of those who commented. They are as follows:
JJ M. -- West Virginia (page 34)
Greg H. -- Ohio (page 35)
Jonathan S. -- No state listed, but says he's a non-resident (page 35)
John A. -- Maine (but owns & hunts land in Indiana) (page 36)
David M. -- Texas (hunts on family land here in Indiana) (page 59)
Toby B. -- No state listed (page 61)
Russell S. -- Virginia (former Indiana resident) (page 70)
Kevin W. -- Illinois (hunts Indiana) (page 105)
Warren W. -- Ohio (hunts Indiana) (page 107)
Michael R. -- Texas (page 124)
Timothy D. -- Ohio (page 125)
Dennis N. -- Kentucky (plans to hunt Indiana) (page 129)
Karl M. -- New Mexico (plans to hunt Indiana) (page 135) And if you want to read the whole thread..... huntingindiana.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=deerhunting&action=display&thread=1180131016&page=1[/quote]HH....You should one day be educated on the IP address and the world of emails. This person counted those who said they were non residents, not all who actually were/are. There is a difference
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Jun 6, 2007 20:32:19 GMT -5
greghopper,
then educate me! so tell me how many were non-resident and pro crossbow. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jun 6, 2007 20:35:43 GMT -5
I was involved in the thread over on HH.com where this statement was made.
I am amazed jb and others are so assured this was swayed by out of state comments. If they are concerned about comments being counted like votes I would be more concerned about the individuals who put multiple comments in. It happened both for and against, and more of a percentage then the measly OOS comments.
But as it has been pointed out this is more of an issue then one rule change. It is a game that has been going on for years. Those that missed the epic threads between woody and JB would be amazed. To be honest it wore most of us down. Throw Camby in there and it got out of hand at times, down right offensive and borderline IMO.
In conclusion I am glad HuntingIndiana is separate of HH.com, I feel I got more in common with everyone here and would be happy to not see much written about HH.com or IDHA. Unfortunately when they make wild claims it is tough not to get sucked in.
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 6, 2007 20:41:25 GMT -5
Greg, Greghopper's posts have been editted as he is quoting a person that is permanently banned from this site.
That person will not post his words on here in person or by proxy. And, the quote you are making is incorrect anyway. No one on this site, or on the other site, has any way of checking IP addresses of emails sent to the IDNR. Now, the folks at the IDNR could verify SOME of them, but still could not verify all of them. It just doesn't work that way. I am not all knowing, but I do know that much. It has to do with sticky vs static IP's I think.
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Jun 6, 2007 20:51:10 GMT -5
Starting to see the light here... Since you HH have a great interest in this subject you are going to not only allow to go forward but also contribute to it.....
hmm
Im done with it............. you kids continue on......
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 6, 2007 20:56:41 GMT -5
One last thought here: I am not concerned whether or not OOS comments were made. Concerning this or any other issue. I doubt none but a small handfull of hunters are, and I also bet most would welcome OOS if it supported their views. The vast majority of INDIANA hunters who responded were in favor of PCR's. I do not care who got the ball rolling here. I do not care who got their toes stepped on. This issue should have been approved years ago. End of story. Crossbows areother issue I feel the same way about. I will support it passing, and passing for the entire bow season, with no more or less restrictions than are on currently legal bows. And I do not care who voices their opinions on it, either pro or con, as long as the IDNR ultimately makes the decision.
|
|