|
Post by outdoorswithdon on Feb 22, 2008 14:27:52 GMT -5
Woody,
You're arguments scare the crap out of me. Please reread the constitution and get a better understanding of free speech and the role of the press in this country. Like it or not, the press you regualrly bash is responsible for many of the freedoms you have today. You, and many of the guys here continually argue that nothing should be printed unless it furthers your personal agendas, or at least doesn't rock the status quo. Any dissention and you think it should be censored by me before it makes my column? Sound a little like a dictator state. And for the millionth time, I wrote this column after getting emails from readers complaining about this subject, and I don't care about growing bigger bucks. I'm very happy with the bucks I am seeing in IN. Continuiung to say this is my personal agenda doesn't make it so - just easier for you to defend your position.
Of course I meant 100,000 individual newspapers. Splitting hairs is the sign of a weak position.
And to say I'm less of a "hunter" because of a column about hunting is ridiculous.
Also, I did not say hunting days should be lessened. What my readers have told me, is that they just want fewer gun days. I could care less if we replace the lost gun days with more bow season or the right to hunt with a pointed stick. So much for all of your arguments that I'm trying to fill some personal agenda to whittle away at our time in the field.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Feb 22, 2008 14:31:53 GMT -5
Not anymore, now the majority want to limit them. As far as complaining about a personal agenda; we all have them and yours is on display front and center.
|
|
|
Post by weedhopper on Feb 22, 2008 14:55:02 GMT -5
Who were these "readers"??
|
|
|
Post by drs on Feb 22, 2008 15:02:23 GMT -5
Woody, who is this "outdoorswithdon" person? I've never heard of him before. Is he from Northern Indiana??
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Feb 22, 2008 15:02:34 GMT -5
Don, you complained about the guy that runs out the night befor firearms starts, buys his licenses, slugs, and goes out the next day and shoots at anything that moves. How is shortening the firearms season going to change that. If anything it will just increase those actions. I still say your article is self serving and pushing your own agenda.
|
|
|
Post by weedhopper on Feb 22, 2008 15:17:32 GMT -5
Didn't Jim Zumbo do something similar with an article concerning the choice of weapons folks choose use to hunt with?? Didn't the "antis" jump all over this issue and attempt to use it against hunters,,even though it was published as a "sportsman's" article??
I'm not comparing Don to Zumbo,,,,but folks other than "hunters" read this propoganda. Don just planted the "seed"..for those that ARE self-serving.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Feb 22, 2008 16:10:09 GMT -5
More evidence this was not a well thought out article. I browsed your other articles and you yourself wrote a column to defend the hunting restriction attempts in Marion County due to simular complaints, now you agree with them and defend your column as playing devil's advocate? Which is it? Your knowledge of this type of movement being successful in shutting down hunting is good enough reason to not publish this type of article. Not a good move...
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 22, 2008 18:26:08 GMT -5
Woody, who is this "outdoorswithdon" person? I've never heard of him before. Is he from Northern Indiana?? If he is then this explains a lot. Don is a member here and some folks are getting awfully close to making personal attacks. I need to look some of these remarks over and maybe do a little editting. Let's try and cool it somewhat. OK, guys?
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Feb 23, 2008 6:51:36 GMT -5
Woody, You're arguments scare the crap out of me. Please reread the constitution and get a better understanding of free speech and the role of the press in this country. Like it or not, the press you regualrly bash is responsible for many of the freedoms you have today. You, and many of the guys here continually argue that nothing should be printed unless it furthers your personal agendas, or at least doesn't rock the status quo. Any dissention and you think it should be censored by me before it makes my column? Sound a little like a dictator state. And for the millionth time, I wrote this column after getting emails from readers complaining about this subject, and I don't care about growing bigger bucks. I'm very happy with the bucks I am seeing in IN. Continuiung to say this is my personal agenda doesn't make it so - just easier for you to defend your position. Of course I meant 100,000 individual newspapers. Splitting hairs is the sign of a weak position. And to say I'm less of a "hunter" because of a column about hunting is ridiculous. Also, I did not say hunting days should be lessened. What my readers have told me, is that they just want fewer gun days. I could care less if we replace the lost gun days with more bow season or the right to hunt with a pointed stick. So much for all of your arguments that I'm trying to fill some personal agenda to whittle away at our time in the field. I had written perhaps 5 paragraphs but I digress. Respectfully Sir you can't write an opinion piece then jump behind the Constitution. No one is asking you to censor anything just present both sides of the story so people can have a balanced view and make up their own minds. Don't publish only one side of an argument and then act surprised when people call it what it is or accuse you of having a personal agenda. At a rate of better than 4 to 1 people are happy with our DNR and approximately +60% want a longer deer season. The people here are the taxpayers of the state, not the people quoted in your opinion piece. And for you, a reporter, to publish an opinion under the guise of a factual article without checking all the facts or misrepresenting the facts and not stating both sides of the story because the facts don't fit your viewpoint is irresponsible to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 23, 2008 13:53:16 GMT -5
Bull chips Mr. Mulligan. The press did absolutely nothing to do with “the freedoms” that I have today. In fact, I sincerely believe that a lot of the liberal press is attempting to take away many of “the freedoms I enjoy” starting with the second amendment.
The first amendment rights are not just extended to reporters, newspapers, editors and outdoor writers. If you publish your opinion, then the lowly Joe Blow Deer Hunter has the very same right as you to offer their opinion.
You are twisting my words Don. I said that you need to seriously look at the repercussions, especially to hunting, of what you write and have published. If it hurts hunting please stop and ask yourself if the column is worth it. I even phrased it as a “request”.
When the “biologist” from Ohio made the “unsafe” remark why did you not ask him, “Can you back that up with verifiable data.” No, it fit your agenda so you ran with it.
Please reread Reply 91 here.
Don, reread all the posts again. I accused you of that in the beginning and when you said that big bucks was not your agenda I posted –“Maybe we were quick to lump you in with the others that are pushing, pushing and pushing to become a number one trophy state. The ink was not even dry on the OBR extension when some started their "shorten/move the gun season spiel. This article seemed like more of the same.”
Then on reply 76 I said - “Even though Don said his article was not about growing big antlered bucks I think a lot of the "pro-shorten the season" guys (who for the most part want the bow season to remain in tact) see it that way.”
I never aimed any posts at you concerning “big bucks” after that. A few others did, because quite frankly I don’t think they believed you. We are a little gun shy here.
I did debate with a couple others that want the gun season shortened strictly for antler growing reasons.
Not “splitting hairs”. You said –“ My newspaper column runs in about 100,000 papers in Indiana every week.” When most people talk about columns in papers they do not talk about subscriptions, they talk about individual newspapers.
.
I never said that, did I? I did say that you are providing fuel for the antis by writing what you wrote. I am not alone, here and in other forums, in that thinking by a long shot.
You are advocating taking away time in the woods from gun hunters and giving it to the bowhunters? Do you not believe that there is a big enough division in hunting without throwing that one into the fray?
We already have enough of that,. We do not need any more strife of taking something away from one hunter group and giving it to another.
As some mentioned on here that trespassing and poaching is a lot easier with archery equipment than it is with something that goes bang.
Don, You’ve got a bully pulpit. Just use it wisely.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Feb 23, 2008 15:07:52 GMT -5
Does anyone seriously believe that decreasing opportunity will increase selectivity? Seriously? If so, I would sure like and explanation of how that would work.
Also, does anyone seriously think shortening the season and thereby increasing the pressure on hunters, will decrease poaching or trespassing? How so?
I'm sure an explanation of either will make for great entertainment.
It seems that not very long ago the virtues of the OBR were being extolled endlessly and now just a short while later it is being downplayed as the push for more restrictions begins. I guess there really isn't a Booner behind every other tree as we were promised?
Me, personally, I just wish hunters would spend as much time critically evaluating their own hunting efforts and areas as they do the DNR's management efforts.
|
|
|
Post by weedhopper on Feb 23, 2008 15:29:32 GMT -5
I'm with you, Mbogo... Woody,,, ..
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Feb 23, 2008 15:44:41 GMT -5
mbogo, there are a few members here that have attempted to set up their good ground in Indiana but have resorted to sending money out state to Illinois. Maybe they could answer those questions, I just hear it second hand from fellow trophy hunters that I know that go to Illinois, Ohio, and Iowa. I just go to Kentucky (which isn't structured much different than IN) because I have some low pressure private ground and it is reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by danf on Feb 23, 2008 18:20:52 GMT -5
I just hear it second hand from fellow trophy hunters that I know that go to Illinois, Ohio, and Iowa. How many of those people use outfitters? I would bet a fair number of them from the way you talk. Ask those people if the outfitters have a score restriction in place for the bucks that are taken. I would bet that they ALL have a restriction in place. I know when my old boss went to Pike County a couple of years ago, the outfitter he used would charge extra if you took a buck that measured less than 130". By forcing hunters to pass on smaller bucks, outfitters are improving the age structure of the herd in their area(s), and with the vast amount of land in IL being controlled by outfitters, it's easy to see how IL as a state is being affected by that practice. It's not the short gun seasons in IL that is producing the big bucks. Its the soils, first and foremost, and second to that is the restrictions the outfitters are placing on hunters. DO NOT suggest that IN go to a point/score restriction. There is NO way many hunters would support it, and I myself (and I'm sure many, many, many others both here and elsewhere) would campaign HARD against it. If you want to self-impose something, go for it. I'm certainly not going to stop you. However, DO NOT tell me how I (or anyone else) should hunt. I agree with mbogo- how are shorter seasons going to make anything safer??? As it is, opening day of gun sounds like a war zone in most areas of the state. There's enough hunters that stay home on the opener because they are afraid of the density. Shorten the gun season and they will probably start hunting those days due to less opportunity, adding to the density of hunters in the woods. I'm afraid if you shorten the gun season, using whatever rationale you choose to run with, you are going to start seeing more hunters getting shot by fellow hunters, simply because they are not being allowed to decide when they can hunt.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2008 18:37:28 GMT -5
Your wrong. Selective harvest hunting is a lot safer than the norm. QDMA has done the data and it's been proven.
Shorter seasons can be effective. There is no reason to believe otherwise and the data speaks for it's self.
Not all and far less than half of the hunters going to Illinois use outfitters. That's why the reserve for outfitters was much lower than half when it was in effect.
Any change is unpopular, except by one of the special interest groups. In the case of shorter guns seasons, it's normally a push by an archery group. This appears to be a push from another group with similar interests.
With gun hunter out numbering archery/trophy only hunters, this will remain as a thorn in ones rear until it's resolved in the normal fashion.
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Feb 24, 2008 3:55:07 GMT -5
I've not jumped in here yet, as I've been dealing with Don on HH.com, and you all are welcome to read his thoughts there...
My main burn on this is that Don slams Indiana's DNR without giving them the benefit of a response, apparently because as he stated, he already knew what they thought. I also have a real problem with him dodging questions on both HH.com and HI.com, and instead tossing out dismissive and demeaning statements regarding those who question his tome.
As Woody pointed out, the column is full of anecdotal "evidence" but no offering of stats or real data. IMO, any deer manager, when contacted by a member of the press, is going to say his/her state's management plan is going along great and is better than other plans which may differ in approach. What's the alternative... "Yeah, I really like what Indiana is doing and wish we could do that here..."
When I did some googling and pulled up the PDF of Ohio's entire season stat summary, 20 pages of tables and charts, county by county, Don says the anecdotal quotes from the Ohio head deer guy "trumps" these reports. Since those stats show Ohio's deer vehicle accident and crop damage stats on an upward spiral for the past 5+ years, one wonders where ODNR gets off claiming their herd is under control.
Don also thinks that bad weather has no effect on harvest or number of hunters in the field. That certainly hasn't been my experience based on 35 or so years of deer hunting.
When I get a free moment later this week, I plan to call Ohio's guy and have a chat with him. I'm curious to find out why he thinks season length has no bearing on deer management and hunter selectivity.
If nothing else, like Zumbo's gaff, Don's column will certainly motivate folks to keep a watchful eye on NRC procedings and such...
I also plan tomorrow to send Jim Mitchell and e-mail thanking him for all the time and effort I know he puts into managing Indiana's deer herd... IDNR certainly deserved better treatment than they got in Mr. Mulligan's piece...
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Feb 24, 2008 4:28:33 GMT -5
Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Feb 24, 2008 13:20:11 GMT -5
JKD,
I said that in my first response to Don. From what i read in his commentary he has some personal issues with Dr. Mitchell and using his column to promote his distaste for him.
I went to Dons website and read a few more of his articles and one in particular caught my eye. In that article it seems Don didn't see any turkeys on his property so he thinks the IDNR needs to stop fall turkey hunting in some counties in the southern part of the state.
Seems Don wants to take away hunting opportunities from hunters and that really has me puzzled as to why an outdoors writer would promote that kind of philosophy? h.h.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Feb 24, 2008 13:26:03 GMT -5
hornharvester, I also read some of his articles, and they left me puzzled. I am now asking myself: "Whose side is this Don Mulligan on anyhow??"
|
|
|
Post by whiteoak on Feb 24, 2008 17:03:52 GMT -5
Dear Mr. outdoorswithdon, Does the paper that you work for allow letters to the editor? If so, myself and I am sure several other would like to respond to your self centered views about our deer season, so that our views can be seen in all your 100,000 papers that they would be published in, instead of just here on Hunting Indiana talk board. You can respond by posting the address to which mine, and I'm sure several others letters should go. Sincerely Yours, Whiteoak
|
|