|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 12, 2015 13:28:44 GMT -5
I believe those opposing HPR use in Indiana base their concerns on safety. Some, but not all. Many in the comments I read last night said that the herd is way down now and they fear that HPR's will make it worse.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 12, 2015 14:03:12 GMT -5
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. It does not matter where "folks" came from. The gist of it there was a referendum on bear hunting and hunters PLUS the Colorado Division or Fish and Wildlife lost. I cant believe that any hunter would want the public to vote on not allowing hunting or any hunting matter. Then it boils down to who has the best campaign and money. We know how truthful the anti-hunters are don't we? Comments to the NRC..fine and dandy. Count votes.. no way. BTW = No "sway" to it. The Colorado Division or Fish and Wildlife had absolutely no input. Game management was taken out of their hands..
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 12, 2015 14:07:11 GMT -5
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. AND That is the way we would like to keep it. You, OTOH, want the NRC to count votes. I believe those opposing HPR use in Indiana base their concerns on safety. Believe all that you want, but quite a few based it on "we don't need HPRs" and " it will decimate the herd".The present system works just fine..
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 12, 2015 14:14:53 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... Why have public comment at all? Even if they tried to make it so only hunters had input there is absolutely nothing stopping anti hunters from purchasing a hunting license and taking part if a license were a requirement. There is nothing on this or any other web forum that proves any of us are hunters so using these sorts of resources is out .... So the answer is to take comment but not weigh those comments?
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 14:16:41 GMT -5
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. It does not matter where "folks" came from. The gist of it there was a referendum on bear hunting and hunters PLUS the Colorado Division or Fish and Wildlife lost. I can't believe that any hunter would want the public to vote on not allowing hunting or any hunting matter. Then it boils down to who has the best campaign and money. We know how truthful the anti-hunters are don't we? Comments to the NRC..fine and dandy. Count votes.. no way. How very much true!! Money speaks, and the Fish & Game Dept. along with Bear Hunters out in Colorado "Walk". Those with the means (money) would rather have more Ski Resorts & Golf Courses, so they buy their way in at the expense of Hunters.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 12, 2015 14:25:06 GMT -5
I believe those opposing HPR use in Indiana base their concerns on safety. Some, but not all. Many in the comments I read last night said that the herd is way down now and they fear that HPR's will make it worse. I really don't think HPR will reduce Indiana's Deer Herd anymore than the present equipment does. But rather, the loss of habitat and Urban Sprawl will.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 12, 2015 14:29:26 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... Why have public comment at all? Even if they tried to make it so only hunters had input there is absolutely nothing stopping anti hunters from purchasing a hunting license and taking part if a license were a requirement. There is nothing on this or any other web forum that proves any of us are hunters so using these sorts of resources is out .... So the answer is to take comment but not weigh those comments? Yep..... Who's to say the two citizen petitions the DNR got even came from hunters? Or do they need to be??
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 12, 2015 14:35:36 GMT -5
Some men think they own the deer and are usually quickly reminded that the state of Indiana does .... and therefore the taxpayers of the state of Indiana. Not just hunters.
But admitting that also takes one step closer to sliding down that slippery slope .... allowing those who do not hunt to have a say in what we hunters get to do.
Seems aint nothing in this world easy is there .....
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 12, 2015 14:35:54 GMT -5
It does not matter where "folks" came from. The gist of it there was a referendum on bear hunting and hunters PLUS the Colorado Division or Fish and Wildlife lost. I can't believe that any hunter would want the public to vote on not allowing hunting or any hunting matter. Then it boils down to who has the best campaign and money. We know how truthful the anti-hunters are don't we? Comments to the NRC..fine and dandy. Count votes.. no way. How very much true!! Money speaks, and the Fish & Game Dept. along with Bear Hunters out in Colorado "Walk". Those with the means (money) would rather have more Ski Resorts & Golf Courses, so they buy their way in at the expense of Hunters. David, You are all over the map on this subject..
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 12, 2015 14:44:38 GMT -5
I would hope that the petitions that started the HPR ball rolling were from hunters, otherwise something very fishy is going on. Lol!
It is my opinion that those unaffected by a proposal should have no say in the matter. Sure, allow a landowner that lives in an area with hunters to comment, but there's no need for some little old lady that never leaves the big city to weigh in on matters that have no bearing on her life. Again, just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 12, 2015 14:51:47 GMT -5
I would hope that the petitions that started the HPR ball rolling were from hunters, otherwise something very fishy is going on. Lol! Im sure it was ... or it could be something as silly as someone in the DNR telling a buddy "hey, request we legalize rifles" and that was the public request.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 12, 2015 16:18:08 GMT -5
I would hope that the petitions that started the HPR ball rolling were from hunters, otherwise something very fishy is going on. Lol! Im sure it was ... or it could be something as silly as someone in the DNR telling a buddy "hey, request we legalize rifles" and that was the public request. The DNR does not need to ask anyone to make a suggestion. Every GotInput session the suggestions are all over the map. The DNR can pick and choose which ones fits what they want...and it only takes one such suggestion to run with it. As far as the "signed petitions" = I'm told that they are considered that is why you saw the one in the mailed in file. BUT - again, noses are being counted so a petition holds no more weight any other pieces of input. An outdoor "journalist" was highly whizzed that his multi signed petition didn't sway the NRC on Proposition 2..
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 12, 2015 16:48:48 GMT -5
Im sure it was ... or it could be something as silly as someone in the DNR telling a buddy "hey, request we legalize rifles" and that was the public request. The DNR does not need to ask anyone to make a suggestion. Every GotInput session the suggestions are all over the map. The DNR can pick and choose which ones fits what they want...and it only takes one such suggestion to run with it. As far as the "signed petitions" = I'm told that they are considered that is why you saw the one in the mailed in file. BUT - again, noses are being counted so a petition holds no more weight any other pieces of input. An outdoor "journalist" was highly whizzed that his multi signed petition didn't sway the NRC on Proposition 2.. That maybe true but the HPR came from different route "The Natural Resources Commission received two citizen petitions requesting that the Commission change the administrative rule governing the use of rifles for deer hunting that would allow the .243, .30-30, .45-70, and several others. " www.in.gov/nrc/files/item_5_ac_jan_2015.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 12, 2015 16:58:39 GMT -5
The DNR does not need to ask anyone to make a suggestion. Every GotInput session the suggestions are all over the map. The DNR can pick and choose which ones fits what they want...and it only takes one such suggestion to run with it. As far as the "signed petitions" = I'm told that they are considered that is why you saw the one in the mailed in file. BUT - again, noses are being counted so a petition holds no more weight any other pieces of input. An outdoor "journalist" was highly whizzed that his multi signed petition didn't sway the NRC on Proposition 2.. That maybe true but the HPR came from different route "The Natural Resources Commission received two citizen petitions requesting that the Commission change the administrative rule governing the use of rifles for deer hunting that would allow the .243, .30-30, .45-70, and several others. " www.in.gov/nrc/files/item_5_ac_jan_2015.pdfGreg, Why did you cut out - "Furthermore, the DNR has received numerous requests over the years from the public and from legislators about allowing additional rifle cartridges, particularly those that are legal in other states for deer hunting. The DNR reviewed these requests and the Natural Resources Commission gave preliminary adoption to the proposal that would allow rifle cartridges to be used during the deer firearms seasons as follows:.............."
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 12, 2015 17:02:39 GMT -5
That says a lot right there.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 12, 2015 17:05:52 GMT -5
Woody, Because there statement was started with the "two citizens petition"........ Why did they start the statement that way!!! Maybe because that was the Main selling point!
|
|
|
Post by realhunter on Jan 12, 2015 17:07:05 GMT -5
How very much true!! Money speaks, and the Fish & Game Dept. along with Bear Hunters out in Colorado "Walk". Those with the means (money) would rather have more Ski Resorts & Golf Courses, so they buy their way in at the expense of Hunters. David, You are all over the map on this subject.. Woody, you beat me to it... ^^
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 12, 2015 17:30:54 GMT -5
David, You are all over the map on this subject.. Woody, you beat me to it... ^^ Nope he's one place on the map....... Anybody heard from Kentucky Lake lately? No where did that horse go? Found it!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Jan 12, 2015 18:31:41 GMT -5
Woody, Because there statement was started with the "two citizens petition"........ Why did they start the statement that way!!! Maybe because that was the Main selling point! If I am not mistaken I believe one of those petitions started at a Mid-central IN Outdoors shop called Bass and Buck most who walked through that door signed it as I remember I signed it .
|
|
|
Post by shouldernuke on Jan 12, 2015 18:34:53 GMT -5
Woody, you beat me to it... ^^ Nope he's one place on the map....... Anybody heard from Kentucky Lake lately? No where did that horse go? Found it!!!!! He has been on Archery talk a lot lately starting many threads and has gained the reputation of having a hidden agenda there by his questions or polls he posts .They think he may be involved in land leasing because they all have to do with when to open up seasons in every state around him ,where do you hunt and show me your big bucks !! LOL !!!!
|
|