|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 10:50:10 GMT -5
Why not just place this proposal on the ballot so folks could vote on it? That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Do we really want to include the opinions of those who aren't directly affected by the proposal? I saw one comment from an anti-hunter in the comments -- you can't miss the all capital letters and rant. LOL! I suspect that there are many more in there, only more subtle and hidden. This would be the fairest way, as everyone has the right to vote on items of proposal. Even if it doesn't concern them non-hunters or shooters. If I lived in an area, in Indiana, and was a non-hunter, but still affected by this proposal; I'd want a say so in this proposal.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 12, 2015 10:55:07 GMT -5
If they dont let public comment decide in a decision like this then they shouldn't even ask for the comment. EXACTLY..... I believe this will soon be how things work!!!! We live in a society that has the ability to interact more and more each day..... They hear from more folks now more then ever.... IMO
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 12, 2015 10:56:50 GMT -5
There will be few who say now that they do not wish for HPR to becomes legal (standard ones, not the wildcats).....that wont be using one a year or two down the road should they become part of Indiana's deer hunting. There were a few honest guys in the "no" category who said that even though they opposed HPR's, they would use them too if legalized. There were actually two guys that said that they wanted to hunt with them but didn't want anyone else to. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 12, 2015 10:57:16 GMT -5
No there should not be a "vote". The NRC looks at points made by both sides and then weighs them against each other in making their decisions.
If it was a "vote" they would be counting simple "I'm for it" and "I'm against it" which tells nothing except that individual's preference.
This is the way it has been done since day one. The very best thing the DNR and NRC has ever done was open up input via the Internet. Before it was a dozen or so folks givng I out via mail or at a meeting in Indy. This is much broader.
Proposition 1 and a season shortening on grouse (back 10 years ago) is the only time the NRC hasn't went along with the DNR proposal. A former DNR employee said the NRC telling the DNR to withdraw proposal 1 was unprecedented..
.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 12, 2015 10:58:22 GMT -5
The states resources are the property of all citizens .... or so the story goes. You have to allow comment from everyone. There is no good reason they are needed. There is no good reason they are not needed. Let the public comment, as hap hazard as that process may be, decide. If they dont let public comment decide in a decision like this then they shouldn't even ask for the comment. That's opening a monster can of worms, because eventually the public will just vote out hunting altogether. Please be careful what you wish for...
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 12, 2015 11:02:31 GMT -5
The states resources are the property of all citizens .... or so the story goes. You have to allow comment from everyone. There is no good reason they are needed. There is no good reason they are not needed. Let the public comment, as hap hazard as that process may be, decide. If they dont let public comment decide in a decision like this then they shouldn't even ask for the comment. That's opening a monster can of worms, because eventually the public will just vote out hunting altogether. Please be careful what you wish for... Be very very weary of putting any hunting up for a vote or referendum. Numerous hunters in numerous states have lost some hunting because of this "voting".
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 12, 2015 11:06:11 GMT -5
The states resources are the property of all citizens .... or so the story goes. You have to allow comment from everyone. There is no good reason they are needed. There is no good reason they are not needed. Let the public comment, as hap hazard as that process may be, decide. If they dont let public comment decide in a decision like this then they shouldn't even ask for the comment. That's opening a monster can of worms, because eventually the public will just vote out hunting altogether. Please be careful what you wish for... I'm not saying put it on the ballet.... just if they keep the public comment then that's what it is. Public comment.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 12, 2015 11:23:28 GMT -5
What exactly is going to happen regarding this issue at the NRC meeting in two days?
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Jan 12, 2015 11:39:46 GMT -5
Is there a organized lobbiest involved with the HPR proposal that any one knows of
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 11:45:53 GMT -5
The states resources are the property of all citizens .... or so the story goes. You have to allow comment from everyone. There is no good reason they are needed. There is no good reason they are not needed. Let the public comment, as hap hazard as that process may be, decide. If they dont let public comment decide in a decision like this then they shouldn't even ask for the comment. That's opening a monster can of worms, because eventually the public will just vote out hunting altogether. Please be careful what you wish for...I seriously doubt that would ever happen.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 12, 2015 11:47:29 GMT -5
That's opening a monster can of worms, because eventually the public will just vote out hunting altogether. Please be careful what you wish for... I seriously doubt that would ever happen. Ask other states how their bear hunting is going.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 11:47:54 GMT -5
What exactly is going to happen regarding this issue at the NRC meeting in two days? Guess everyone will have to wait & see. Sort of a HOT issue/proposal.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 12, 2015 11:48:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 11:53:25 GMT -5
I seriously doubt that would ever happen. Ask other states how their bear hunting is going. LOL~ The last time I checked, there was no Black Bear hunting in Indiana. Those States, that curtailed bear hunting, had reasons like low bear population or, as in the case of Washington State, were I have hunted bear, banned the use of Dogs used to chase them.
|
|
|
Post by cedarthicket on Jan 12, 2015 12:10:39 GMT -5
What exactly is going to happen regarding this issue at the NRC meeting in two days? It is my understanding that the meeting in two days is the Advisory Council, which will be discussing the center-fire rifle issue. The Advisory Council is just what its name implies -- it gives advise, serves as a sounding board, makes suggestions, etc. It does NOT have the authority to rule on proposals for regulation changes like the Natural Resources Commission does. Follow the link for more info on the meeting January 14, 2015: www.in.gov/nrc/2435.htm
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 12:16:21 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, Cedarthicket.
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Jan 12, 2015 12:47:12 GMT -5
Ask other states how their bear hunting is going. LOL~ The last time I checked, there was no Black Bear hunting in Indiana. Those States, that curtailed bear hunting, had reasons like low bear population or, as in the case of Washington State, were I have hunted bear, banned the use of Dogs used to chase them. Not to get off topic, but Colorado lost their spring bear season by way of the public ballot in 1992. They have no shortage of bears there.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 12, 2015 12:50:41 GMT -5
Ask other states how their bear hunting is going. LOL~ The last time I checked, there was no Black Bear hunting in Indiana. Those States, that curtailed bear hunting, had reasons like low bear population or, as in the case of Washington State, were I have hunted bear, banned the use of Dogs used to chase them. So, is it of your opinion that hunting referendums do not have an anti-hunting slant to them? As for our current situation, the DNR could sway lots of "no" votes to "yes" (perhaps hundreds) by simply lowering the antlerless quotas. Many opposed HPR's simply out of the fear of decimation of the herd and stated as much in the public comments. Those opposed due to safety reasons are in a separate class.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 13:07:59 GMT -5
LOL~ The last time I checked, there was no Black Bear hunting in Indiana. Those States, that curtailed bear hunting, had reasons like low bear population or, as in the case of Washington State, were I have hunted bear, banned the use of Dogs used to chase them. So, is it of your opinion that hunting referendums do not have an anti-hunting slant to them?As for our current situation, the DNR could sway lots of "no" votes to "yes" (perhaps hundreds) by simply lowering the antlerless quotas. Many opposed HPR's simply out of the fear of decimation of the herd and stated as much in the public comments. Those opposed due to safety reasons are in a separate class. Yes, I can't remember when Indiana had a referendum that would be anti-hunting. I believe those opposing HPR use in Indiana base their concerns on safety.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 13:12:37 GMT -5
LOL~ The last time I checked, there was no Black Bear hunting in Indiana. Those States, that curtailed bear hunting, had reasons like low bear population or, as in the case of Washington State, were I have hunted bear, banned the use of Dogs used to chase them. Not to get off topic, but Colorado lost their spring bear season by way of the public ballot in 1992. They have no shortage of bears there. The reason for Colorado losing their Spring Bear season; is most likely due to other folks from more anti-hunting states moving into Colorado from places like California, plus Eastern States. Those folks have money and can "sway" Colorado's Division of Fish & Game to do what they wish. At least this is what my understanding is from those whom I know that live out there.
|
|