Childish reaction

Lack of confidence in their stance is often to blame.

It shows their true character. Usually it's because they are jealous of someone else's position. For example, they are trying to do something but realize that someone who has been at it much longer is much more efficient.

I just hope people like that are teaching kids to respect others better than they respect others themselves if they are claiming to be about kids. For example.

Because some topics don't have definative right or wrong answers and everyone thinks their way of thinking is how it has to be. Baiting vs food plot, bow vs crossbow, slug vs rifle, trophy vs meat and so on and so forth. Did you make the mistake of getting into a gun debate this week?

I hate it when my husband is right because he likes to be all smug and sanctimonious about it. A sore loser isn't fun but a gloating winner is even worse. Makes me want to slap the crap out of him, bless his heart.

Do you want to share so we may lend you our sympathy and go "ummmmmm..oh no he did-unt!" ;-)

Are we talking about some posts on a certain facebook page or am I completely lost here?

I am very lost as well, did this exchange happen here? I am going to move this to campfire page also.

Ok, I just saw the Facebook. That is insane. I am not sure what all the anger is about. Crossbows were not that big a deal. I still kill the same amount of deer either way.

A group on FB has decided to attack me with lies from a person that has had it in for me since Proposal 1 was dropped. Can you imagine that? What anger .....

I drafted up a LONG read in answer to them, but it is much too long to post there so here it is..


First off as I have told you in the past, I do not lie, period.

The lying source that you are listening to does. He has been whizzed ever since he and his organized deer hunting group president buddy did not get their way on the Deer Proposal #1. Their goal was to shorten and move the firearm season to “grow big azz bucks”, in his words.

He has posted this same BS for years. He was at it hard at first and now just posts snippets of it on Hoosier Hunting from time to time. He is laughed at and ridiculed there now as he is a one trick pony trying to get at me. When Gary posted on Hoosier Hunting he was all too happy to given Gary his “dirt” he thought he had on me, so he would have another way of spreading his lies. Because I do not buy into everything that your group is asking for and put up my side of the debate (in a civil way) Gary is now spreading this person’s lies for him. That makes IWDHM complicent in spreading lies and slander no matter if you did did not say it, you posted it.

I’m a patient man, but his continual lies and now your reposting them is wearing my patience thin.

When Gary asked me to pull what he called “lies and slander” that a couple members on my site said about the IWDHM I pulled the thread and the mods and I looked it over. We decided it served no purpose to repost it and we deleted it.

The next time the IWDHM was mentioned Gary again came on and threatened to sue the members for “lies and slander” and again asked that I delete the thread. I said I would if he would so kindly point out what was “lies and slander” and I and the moderators would handle it. He never did. So I deleted the thread, as like the first one it served no purpose. I also deleted his and Matt’s accounts as I believe that unsubstantiated threats is not what my site is all about.

I guess I don’t deserve the same respect here..

I have no qualms with what Don wrote in his article but he was whizzed about the Proposal #1 going down too. He did write some innuendos about me that were really a stretch, but that is what outdoor writers do. They push the envelope right up to the line but don’t go over it.

The post from the Ohio board and IndianaSportsman is your lying source again. He hunts and participates in the Ohio board. Again, he wants to get at me with his lies.

Interesting that posts from him and the “president” that didn’t like the final decision that it was “pushed through quickly”. It was a long drawn out process of close to three years and they were soliciting help from out of state like they did with the first proposal.

They both are saying that the Indiana decision will have a negative impact on Ohio hunters? How so? If anything the Ohio crossbowers will have another state, that just happens to be next door, to deer hunt.

The DNR was issued an ultimatum by the legislature to reduce the deer herd or they would do it for them. This was not supposed to be about trophy management as your lying source and the “president” wanted, but herd reduction only.

This began about five years ago when the DNR and the Natural Resources Commission ,who contrary to what these same posters say, by law has the ultimate authority on changes being made in the Indiana game laws) asked for Indiana deer hunter input on changes that they would like to see. The NRC received a record amount (at that time) of inputs via online forms, emails and letters. Well over a 1,000 pieces of input. From that the NRC Advisory Council came up with a list of recommendations for the NRC. Even though the number one item asked for was full inclusion of crossbows the NRC AC recommended that crossbows only be used by the 65 and over seniors and during the firearm season and the crossbowers and had to get a separate crossbow license. This is something that a president of an organized hunting group said that he had obtained 2 years before outside of the regular NRC input. Back room deal? You bet it was..

The DNR met with selected stakeholder groups – basically the organized bowhunter dominated groups. During these meetings the stakeholders held their ground against crossbows even though the DNR wanted them to be fully included and a 9 day antlerless season in October. A member of one of the stakeholders proudly posted that if it had not been for them that there would be “full inclusion of crossbows and a 9 day firearm antlerless season”.

The DNR put up an insecure online survey that was manipulated by some people on both sides of the issue.
I became aware of this manipulation on day two, as on day one I was turkey hunting in Kentucky. As soon as I got home I sent an email to Director Carter telling him that the DNR online survey through Survey Monkey was being manipulated and that he should consider pulling the survey or let it run its course and disregard the findings.

Contrary to what your lying source has said I never asked anyone to falsify their input or even what input to give,

Director Carter allowed it to continue but pretty well disregarded this on line survey for the decision making process and came out with proposal #1 that was a 180 degree turn from what results they received and published on their survey. So, any cheating by either side on the DNR online survey immediately became a moot point. I’m not sure Director Carter would have known about multiple inputs if I had not sent him that email.

The DNR capitulated and went with the 64 and over seniors and during the firearm season and the crossbowers had to get a separate crossbow license. They threw in a bone with allowing crossbow use in the Urban Deer Zones. I’ve been told that the DNR listened intently to the trophy management biologists from other states, including Mike Tonovich.

In order to kill more deer they also proposed to shorten both the firearm season AND the late muzzleloader season (antlerless kill for the MZ season is 80+%) and throw in a late firearm season around Christmas.

To most people, including me, that was asinine. You don’t kill more deer (which was the goal at that time) by shortening seasons. BTW – The DNR stated that they were lengthening the archery season to “kill more deer”. Make sense? No.

The NRC agenda with the first proposal was posted on the NRC site a week and half before the next NRC meeting where preliminary adoption (a formality) was going to be made. Numerous Indiana hunting websites, outdoor radio shows, and newspapers picked up on that and the talk began. The NRC got a BUNCH of emails prior to that meeting. So the NRC had a pretty good inkling of what was coming down prior to that preliminary acceptance meeting.. They awakened a sleeping giant of 200,000 Indiana deer hunters. The same folks that you say that you want to represent now.

The NRC and DNR received over 3,000+ pieces of input. Your “lie source” said that only “3% of the deer hunters” but I have been at this Administrative Rules Process a long time and that is a record amount of input by far. The previous record was the original input when this all started.

In my opinion, the deciding factor in a withdrawl of Proposition 1 was when the DNR tried to salvage the first proposal by having the 4 "informational meetings" around the state. The hundreds of Indiana deer hunters that showed up at these meetings were overwhelmingly against proposal number one. This was not fake input from fake deer hunters voicing displeasure as in the Online DNR survey. These were the real in the flesh Indiana deer hunter stakeholders that were aroused enough to travel these open houses to voice their displeasure with the first proposal. The DNR must have realized then that there was a better method of achieving their deer reduction goals by including these Indiana deer hunters in the process instead of just listening to a few agenda driven clubs.

Basically the Indiana deer hunters saw through the proposal and wanted no part of it. Did I work at getting the first proposal dropped and for the adoption of the second? Absolutely, but at no time was it “back room deals”.

The first proposal was pulled and the DNR went to work on the second proposal.

As Gene Hopkins, who is the President of the Indiana Sportsman’s Roundtable said, “I know that I have said this before, but this is evidence that the process works – your inputs were listened to.”

Proposal #1 was withdrawn and the DNR (without the “help” of the organized hunting groups) went to work on Proposal #2 that would really enlist the help of the Indiana deer hunters instead of taking something away from them. They left the present firearm and MZ seasons as is and added the weekend of antlerless firearm hunting in December. The DNR also went back to what they originally wanted – full inclusion of crossbows in all deer seasons.

Again, the Indiana deer hunters responded well with inputs and the majority wanted Proposal #2.

You lying source did not like that and started a campaign to “squash Proposal #2” by sending out packets asking people to by pass the recognized Administrative Rules Process by contacting the folks that started the whole mess – the politicians.

The DNR Proposal #2 passed the NRC committee unanimously and then the lying source and a few of his buds were still trying to “squash the proposal” by asking people, even from out of state to again contact the politicians – the AG and the Governor.

Sour grapes all the way down the line.

Let me conclude by saying I worked the system honestly and fairly and the DNR and NRC know that. You can side with the liar and go with that but the DNR and NRC also read your page and they know what REALLY happened, so you are digging that hole deeper with the DNR and NRC. You might want to consider that when you leave up and post lies from your source.

There is nothing wrong with the folks on this site, its the only one i bother with.
It seems to me like everything done was by a democratic decision, unfortunstley some folks cant take that.
I strongly believe they are in the wrong country.
Same over here at times.
regards
Billy