|
|
Post by fowlhunter on Jul 13, 2010 8:55:44 GMT -5
Every time I see this it ticks me off. To me a stakeholder is someone that owns part of something, so to me anyone that hunts deer in Indiana is a "stakeholder". The way I see it the true "stakeholders" are about to get the shaft because per the survey the real "stakeholders" said they did not support any shortening of the current seasons. This excuse of herd reduction is really funny because the last time I checked we have been setting record harvests and the antlerless bag limit is very liberal and then there is the fact that people will only kill a certain number of deer regardless of seasons, dates or bag limits. I really feel bad for the firearm only deer hunter. This will proposal will not really effect me beacause I hunt with all weapons and primarily archery so I will still hunt 50+ days a year and kill the same amount of deer I always kill, but this is not about me this is about what is fair for all Indiana deer hunters. I know how passionate I am about deer hunting and if I was only a firearm hunter knowing that I was only going to get 9 days to partake in the event that I look forward to and think about every day of the year I would be fighting mad.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jul 13, 2010 9:04:12 GMT -5
Form your own stakeholder group with some like minded folks. Make your voices heard.
Nobody is stopping you.
|
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Jul 13, 2010 9:22:05 GMT -5
Stakeholder sounds better than their real name "special interest groups".
How would it look to the general public if the meeting minutes read the IDNR contacted two special interest groups etc....., etc....
Its all smoke screen to make the state a trophy hunting state like Illinois and Iowa. It all started with the OBR and now this and who knows what will come in the future...........and all for a set of horns.........sad isn't it...h.h.
|
|
|
|
Post by fowlhunter on Jul 13, 2010 9:25:02 GMT -5
Form your own stakeholder group with some like minded folks. Make your voices heard. Nobody is stopping you. That comment is getting old also. If the results of a survey of Indiana deer hunters that said they do not support shortening of the seasons is not listened to why would anyone think they would listen to a newly formed group. Again the term stakeholder really gets me. Why does a small group get to be a stakeholder, there needs to be a better process for polling the deer hunting public and that input should carry more weight than the opinions of these so called stakeholder groups. If I formed a stakeholder group it would just be more of the same, a group of people trying to mandate their opinons on the rest of the state. one of two things needs to happen 1. Can all the stakeholders and let the biologist do their job or 2. Can all the stakeholders and listen to the deer hunting public |
|
|
|
Post by fowlhunter on Jul 13, 2010 9:30:00 GMT -5
If herd reduction is really the goal taking away opportunity makes no sense no matter what spin you put on it. If that was the goal why not leave season as it currently is and add the early and late antlerless seasons that they are proposing.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jul 13, 2010 9:34:17 GMT -5
Unfortunately that is how the game is played at this time. You can choose to participate or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by fowlhunter on Jul 13, 2010 9:36:13 GMT -5
Unfortunately that is how the game is played at this time. You can choose to participate or not. Well at least someone will admit that is how things work. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jul 13, 2010 9:38:56 GMT -5
That isnt just how this works .... that is how the world works.
|
|
|
|
Post by fowlhunter on Jul 13, 2010 9:44:15 GMT -5
I am well aware of that. Its just too bad it has to be a part of deer hunting.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jul 13, 2010 9:46:04 GMT -5
I wasnt being a smart ass when I told you to form your own group. You may not be able to completely change the rules but at least you would be in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by fowlhunter on Jul 13, 2010 9:49:58 GMT -5
I didn't take it that way. Like I said in my original post these proposals benefit me as a archer but I still don't like it beacause of how it effects the gun hunters.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jul 13, 2010 9:53:27 GMT -5
I figure I dont really care one way or the other.
What I am going to do is tell as many people as I can so they can make up their own mind.
Doesnt matter if a person is for it or against it ....... withholding the information from others with a "stake" isnt fair. I wouldnt like being blindsided if I were them.
|
|
|
|
Post by fowlhunter on Jul 13, 2010 9:56:18 GMT -5
Same here I have told just about everyone I know that hunts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 13, 2010 10:05:30 GMT -5
I figure I dont really care one way or the other. What I am going to do is tell as many people as I can so they can make up their own mind. Doesnt matter if a person is for it or against it ....... withholding the information from others with a "stake" isnt fair. I wouldnt like being blindsided if I were them. "Blindside" is exactly what is going to happen. Then it will be way too late. The NRCAC, the NRC and the IDNR NEEDS to listen more to the hunters in this state. They are taking the easy way out and listening to these hunting groups that represent no one except their limted membership and not all of them. The NRCAC recieved over 1,000 pieces of input last year. MOST they promptly discarded. IF there is not a general uprising (like in the PCRs and the youth either sex), then Mr. Average Joe Deer Hunter might as well not waste his time.. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jul 13, 2010 10:28:04 GMT -5
Cant be an uprising until as many as possible are educated ..... I would say baby steps but given our time frame I think this baby needs to learn how to run pretty quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 13, 2010 10:44:02 GMT -5
Cant be an uprising until as many as possible are educated ..... I would say baby steps but given our time frame I think this baby needs to learn how to run pretty quickly. Yes, we absolutely need to get the word out and let the chips fall where they may. This is NOT going to take effect this year, so what is the big hurry on the NRC accepting it? Why not take hunter input for 3 or4 months instead of just one month? In the meantime the IDNR can broadcast it through all channels All hunters that are aware of can talk it up and solicit input. Why has not Phil Bloom sent this out as a Wildlife Bulletin so more hunters will know what is being proposed? Why not solicit hunter input that way? The proposed changes originally came from an organized hunting group in a communication to their members and the regular Joe Indiana Deer Hunters see nothing from the IDNR? |
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Jul 14, 2010 5:15:29 GMT -5
They know they are screwing people. They are hoping this will go just like the OBR. People will wake up one day and will have lost all their prime hunting and half of their not so prime hunting. But thats ok because we will still have record harvests every year to keep the insurance companies happy which in turn keeps the legislature off their arses. Meantime there is no doubt the bucks won't be 200+ monsters but a more bucks will be in 170 range so overall things will be "better". Then after a few years the outfitters will begin to really push and start leasing up ground. We will have rich folks from all over leasing ground like crazy. Hunting clubs will spring up and you will have to pay thousands every year to hunt on the property. The DNR will continue to cook the numbers to continue to show record harvests. They will be out adding EHD deer to their harvest numbers just to keep the legislature off their collective arses. One day in about 10 or 15 years the bow only hunters will wake up and realize their small "victory" giving them all the prime time of the rut will have been in vain because there is no place for them to hunt except on over hunter populated public ground unless they want to fork over 3-5000 dollars a year to belong to a "hunt club" This is their own death song but it will happen so slowly by the time they realize it will be to late because there will be so much money awash in the state legislature from all the outfitters and rich sobs there will be no hope in coming back.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jul 14, 2010 7:02:27 GMT -5
They know they are screwing people. They are hoping this will go just like the OBR. People will wake up one day and will have lost all their prime hunting and half of their not so prime hunting. But thats ok because we will still have record harvests every year to keep the insurance companies happy which in turn keeps the legislature off their arses. The DNR will continue to cook the numbers to continue to show record harvests. They will be out adding EHD deer to their harvest numbers just to keep the legislature off their collective arses. CORRECT!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2010 7:55:38 GMT -5
Where is the data to back up this change?  |
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jul 14, 2010 8:07:04 GMT -5
Well, there "may" be some data from other states.  |
|
