|
|
Post by firstwd on Apr 16, 2017 20:16:44 GMT -5
Over the last several months there has been a group causing a lot of noise about bonus antlerless licenses, the inability of the DNR to do their job, and wanting the public to make deer policy. Their stated goals have for quite some time have been fluid, but lately they have stuck with wanting to get County Deer Advisory Councils (CDACs) started so the general public (boots on the ground) have a method to let the DNR know of their situation and observations. While the idea is along the right track there are obvious errors in the formation, format, and execution of the current pilot CDAC program they are now running.
I would like to offer a better way. A way that would not only allow the public (boots on the ground) a way to give up to date annual input, but to almost force them to. This would also get every hunter counted and an accurate number to be used for P.R. money reports.
Indiana Specific Harvest Information Program (ISHIP)
Waterfowlers in Indiana have been using the H.I.P. (Harvest Information Program) for decades and this program would run the same way.
What I propose is a cost free ISHIP number that each individual would be required to obtain before entering the field to hunt. Every individual that hunts Indiana has a Customer Identification Number (CID) with the DNR. This includes resident license holders, non-resident license holders, lifetime licenses holders, and licenses exempt hunters. This number would be how every hunter gets registered to obtain their ISHIP number. Either by phone or website the hunter can select their license type, answer questions about the previous years hunting activity, answer questions about current years plans, and answer questions about their overall experience and satisfaction about their hunting experience and where they would like to see the DNR take those in the future. They would even be given an option to op out of the survey if they so choose.
This would give every hunter the opportunity to voice their concern directly to the DNR whether or not they could attend a public meeting.
This would also expand the current trial and desired program well beyond the confines of deer and bonus antlerless licenses that are currently going around.
This would allow turkey hunters, waterfowl hunters, varmint hunters, rabbit hunters, even bird hunters to give their input, because we don't want to forget those poor kids that are crying on Grandpa's porch because they can't go with him and his bird dog Grouse hunting.
Please consider this idea. In my eyes it gives everybody (boots on the ground) an equal opportunity to provide their input, positive or negative, to the DNR. Comes at no cost to the hunter (boots on the ground) and a minimal cost to the DNR. Is fluid and can be customized to be county specific questions in cases of disease or disaster based on the responses of the hunters (boots on the ground). It involves every hunter (boots on the ground) in the state and not just the deer hunters. This could easily be expanded to include fishing and trapping as well bird watchers, trail riders and hikers, not to mention other public property users.
|
|
|
|
Post by wesb81219 on Apr 16, 2017 21:18:13 GMT -5
I think it's a great idea. Just like any new system implemented it may take some tweaking but it could work for the benefit of all hunters . I do several types of hunting and am still looking to expand so including all types of hunting is great.
|
|
|
|
Post by onebentarrow on Apr 17, 2017 1:50:36 GMT -5
I like this idea even tho i dislike HAVING to do some thing else to be able to hunt.
I think it would give the DNR better balanced input and opinions from ALL parts of the state and some what eliminate the squeeky wheel gets the grease senerio.
I know i have never been able to attend any meeting on deer hunting because of work or time constrains. This would give my opinion a voice of sorts.
This probity wont fly because it takes some LOUD input away from the single minded ideas of some groups.
The nice thing about this is the DNR could post the resulting findings on There web to show WHAT the state hunters think insted of hearing what this or that group sais we said.
Onebentarrow
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Apr 17, 2017 8:30:52 GMT -5
I hate to be the old curmudgeon tossing cold water on the spark, but I really don't see any advantage to this over previous efforts along the same line. We've had various forms mailed to us, meetings held in our areas in the evenings on weekdays to be more convenient to the majority of hunters who work day shift, and lots of opinion polls and expression opportunities on the net forums, which have recieved varying amounts of attention and response for years.
As long as there exists an "opt out" escape route, that will remain by far the most popular one taken, and if that loophole were closed, the result would be more nonsense answers to what would be considered another nuisance by most hunters.
I thought the best solution to getting real-life, actual input from a variety of hunters were the meetings, and I attended several of them, filled out the questionnaires, and spoke with the CO's and DNR personnel present. They were a pleasant and informative experience and I was glad I went, even though I was usually on night shift most of my career and taking a half night off work was kinda pricey.
But the plain truth is that most of us just don't want to take time and effort to participate in discussions, and those who do are already participating. The only things that seem to motivate a more general participation level is a perceived threat to one of our favorite hunting methods or season dates, and then the participation level goes up without much if any increase in the level of INFORMED participants, and the results seem to be the same..... conviction in the minds of the disappointed afterwards that their viewpoint wasn't heard or was heard and was intentionally ignored, or that their voices were outbid or otherwise influenced unfairly. It's pretty much the same problem we have at every level of government, with voters still voting Democrat because their daddy was sure that FDR saved us all from the Great Depression and was the friend of the working man.
I don't know what the solution to that problem would be, but I suspect that something more along the lines of the opinion surveys on this and other sites, which already generate considerable interchange of ideas and opinions among US, and result in a good bit of input to the DNR, along with the actual numbers of people holding the various opinions within the group polled, would be very high on the list of contenders. Are they perfect? No, but they look pretty hard to beat until something better is invented. We can discuss and debate our own ideas within the forums, join with others in some opinions and agree to disagree with others, and add our input at our convenience while sitting comfortably in our own homes (or at work if we don't mind the boss paying while we do so), and we can be pretty well assured that our opinions have been conveyed to the DNR for their attention should they choose to give it. That's about all anyone can reasonably ask of a device for delivering our "voice" on the issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 17, 2017 11:09:16 GMT -5
I hate to be the old curmudgeon tossing cold water on the spark, but I really don't see any advantage to this over previous efforts along the same line. We've had various forms mailed to us, meetings held in our areas in the evenings on weekdays to be more convenient to the majority of hunters who work day shift, and lots of opinion polls and expression opportunities on the net forums, which have recieved varying amounts of attention and response for years. As long as there exists an "opt out" escape route, that will remain by far the most popular one taken, and if that loophole were closed, the result would be more nonsense answers to what would be considered another nuisance by most hunters. I thought the best solution to getting real-life, actual input from a variety of hunters were the meetings, and I attended several of them, filled out the questionnaires, and spoke with the CO's and DNR personnel present. They were a pleasant and informative experience and I was glad I went, even though I was usually on night shift most of my career and taking a half night off work was kinda pricey. But the plain truth is that most of us just don't want to take time and effort to participate in discussions, and those who do are already participating. The only things that seem to motivate a more general participation level is a perceived threat to one of our favorite hunting methods or season dates, and then the participation level goes up without much if any increase in the level of INFORMED participants, and the results seem to be the same..... conviction in the minds of the disappointed afterwards that their viewpoint wasn't heard or was heard and was intentionally ignored, or that their voices were outbid or otherwise influenced unfairly. It's pretty much the same problem we have at every level of government, with voters still voting Democrat because their daddy was sure that FDR saved us all from the Great Depression and was the friend of the working man. I don't know what the solution to that problem would be, but I suspect that something more along the lines of the opinion surveys on this and other sites, which already generate considerable interchange of ideas and opinions among US, and result in a good bit of input to the DNR, along with the actual numbers of people holding the various opinions within the group polled, would be very high on the list of contenders. Are they perfect? No, but they look pretty hard to beat until something better is invented. We can discuss and debate our own ideas within the forums, join with others in some opinions and agree to disagree with others, and add our input at our convenience while sitting comfortably in our own homes (or at work if we don't mind the boss paying while we do so), and we can be pretty well assured that our opinions have been conveyed to the DNR for their attention should they choose to give it. That's about all anyone can reasonably ask of a device for delivering our "voice" on the issues. That is why it thrilled me when the DNR and NRC started taking input via the internet, although the DNR found out pretty quickly that "Survey Monkey" was not the way to do it. Online surveys have to be secure. Having to use our CID numbers to check in is a good way to secure it. Russ, You've been around this stuff a lot longer than I have. You know how decisions used to be made in Indy with only a handful of people (mostly organized hunting group reps) in attendance. That is exactly how the OBR came about... . |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Apr 17, 2017 11:45:13 GMT -5
Give the number without requiring input ..... make the input or survey portion optional. No gooblygook answers/data to drill through and every single man, woman or child who hunts deer has the exact same opportunity to give input.
|
|
|
|
Post by onebentarrow on Apr 17, 2017 11:49:54 GMT -5
So Me Koon what you are telling me is if it was mandatory like the hip registration no. and survay that most peiple would lie to the questioner on the phone survay to get there registration no. so they could hunt.
I have taken the hip survay for years (and even tho i do not like it) i have answered all questions to the best of my ability and think 99% of all others would to.
Here again it would be 100% of the hunters in the state not just the ones that went to a meeting or contacted there CO.
Seems to me.there would be a better overall picture than wjo can organise the moat people to get to a.meeting.
Onebentarrow
|
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Apr 17, 2017 19:03:28 GMT -5
I hate to be the old curmudgeon tossing cold water on the spark, but I really don't see any advantage to this over previous efforts along the same line. We've had various forms mailed to us, meetings held in our areas in the evenings on weekdays to be more convenient to the majority of hunters who work day shift, and lots of opinion polls and expression opportunities on the net forums, which have recieved varying amounts of attention and response for years. As long as there exists an "opt out" escape route, that will remain by far the most popular one taken, and if that loophole were closed, the result would be more nonsense answers to what would be considered another nuisance by most hunters. I thought the best solution to getting real-life, actual input from a variety of hunters were the meetings, and I attended several of them, filled out the questionnaires, and spoke with the CO's and DNR personnel present. They were a pleasant and informative experience and I was glad I went, even though I was usually on night shift most of my career and taking a half night off work was kinda pricey. But the plain truth is that most of us just don't want to take time and effort to participate in discussions, and those who do are already participating. The only things that seem to motivate a more general participation level is a perceived threat to one of our favorite hunting methods or season dates, and then the participation level goes up without much if any increase in the level of INFORMED participants, and the results seem to be the same..... conviction in the minds of the disappointed afterwards that their viewpoint wasn't heard or was heard and was intentionally ignored, or that their voices were outbid or otherwise influenced unfairly. It's pretty much the same problem we have at every level of government, with voters still voting Democrat because their daddy was sure that FDR saved us all from the Great Depression and was the friend of the working man. I don't know what the solution to that problem would be, but I suspect that something more along the lines of the opinion surveys on this and other sites, which already generate considerable interchange of ideas and opinions among US, and result in a good bit of input to the DNR, along with the actual numbers of people holding the various opinions within the group polled, would be very high on the list of contenders. Are they perfect? No, but they look pretty hard to beat until something better is invented. We can discuss and debate our own ideas within the forums, join with others in some opinions and agree to disagree with others, and add our input at our convenience while sitting comfortably in our own homes (or at work if we don't mind the boss paying while we do so), and we can be pretty well assured that our opinions have been conveyed to the DNR for their attention should they choose to give it. That's about all anyone can reasonably ask of a device for delivering our "voice" on the issues. Don't mistake my meaning. I don't want to take away any of the current input methods, or the major event meetings. I simply think this would be a much better way and include every hunter in the state instead of the CDAC meetings that is currently being pushed. |
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Apr 18, 2017 7:04:00 GMT -5
I hate to be the old curmudgeon tossing cold water on the spark, but I really don't see any advantage to this over previous efforts along the same line. We've had various forms mailed to us, meetings held in our areas in the evenings on weekdays to be more convenient to the majority of hunters who work day shift, and lots of opinion polls and expression opportunities on the net forums, which have recieved varying amounts of attention and response for years. As long as there exists an "opt out" escape route, that will remain by far the most popular one taken, and if that loophole were closed, the result would be more nonsense answers to what would be considered another nuisance by most hunters. I thought the best solution to getting real-life, actual input from a variety of hunters were the meetings, and I attended several of them, filled out the questionnaires, and spoke with the CO's and DNR personnel present. They were a pleasant and informative experience and I was glad I went, even though I was usually on night shift most of my career and taking a half night off work was kinda pricey. But the plain truth is that most of us just don't want to take time and effort to participate in discussions, and those who do are already participating. The only things that seem to motivate a more general participation level is a perceived threat to one of our favorite hunting methods or season dates, and then the participation level goes up without much if any increase in the level of INFORMED participants, and the results seem to be the same..... conviction in the minds of the disappointed afterwards that their viewpoint wasn't heard or was heard and was intentionally ignored, or that their voices were outbid or otherwise influenced unfairly. It's pretty much the same problem we have at every level of government, with voters still voting Democrat because their daddy was sure that FDR saved us all from the Great Depression and was the friend of the working man. I don't know what the solution to that problem would be, but I suspect that something more along the lines of the opinion surveys on this and other sites, which already generate considerable interchange of ideas and opinions among US, and result in a good bit of input to the DNR, along with the actual numbers of people holding the various opinions within the group polled, would be very high on the list of contenders. Are they perfect? No, but they look pretty hard to beat until something better is invented. We can discuss and debate our own ideas within the forums, join with others in some opinions and agree to disagree with others, and add our input at our convenience while sitting comfortably in our own homes (or at work if we don't mind the boss paying while we do so), and we can be pretty well assured that our opinions have been conveyed to the DNR for their attention should they choose to give it. That's about all anyone can reasonably ask of a device for delivering our "voice" on the issues. That is why it thrilled me when the DNR and NRC started taking input via the internet, although the DNR found out pretty quickly that "Survey Monkey" was not the way to do it. Online surveys have to be secure. Having to use our CID numbers to check in is a good way to secure it. Russ, You've been around this stuff a lot longer than I have. You know how decisions used to be made in Indy with only a handful
of people (mostly organized hunting group reps) in attendance. That is exactly how the OBR came about... . I have to admit that is exactly why I look at any group now with a good bit of skepticism. |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 18, 2017 7:36:24 GMT -5
So very true David...especially when they start enlisting political help from politicians....
Nothing good can come of that...
|
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Apr 18, 2017 8:22:03 GMT -5
I've provided input, written letters, sen emails, etc. for decades and have pretty much resigned myself to the idea that those in charge of the deer regs really don't give a hoot what myself and many other deer hunters care about or want. I feel like they are on a mission to get our deer herd knocked way down to 1970's type populations and there isn't any amount of public outcry that is going to change it. Hoosier hunters in the future may just need to travel if they want to see decent numbers of deer.
|
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Apr 18, 2017 8:31:43 GMT -5
That's a helluva stretch to compare today's deer herd to that of the 70s...... Lol
120,000 harvest compared to 20-30,000 smh
|
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Apr 18, 2017 9:19:10 GMT -5
I've provided input, written letters, sen emails, etc. for decades and have pretty much resigned myself to the idea that those in charge of the deer regs really don't give a hoot what myself and many other deer hunters care about or want. I feel like they are on a mission to get our deer herd knocked way down to 1970's type populations and there isn't any amount of public outcry that is going to change it. Hoosier hunters in the future may just need to travel if they want to see decent numbers of deer. If that were the end goal the overall quota figures wouldn't be over 21.9% less in 2016 than they were in 2011 overall. If that were the case the DNR wouldn't have said the reduction plan had a window or time frame in mind. If that were the case NO county quotas would decrease ever. steiny, you are a logical person from everything I've ever read but this post I cannot fathom. The 1970's deer herd was tremendously punitive in size compared to the current. I mean that's like comparing the skillset of a local high school team to the skillset of the Golden State Warriors. Kudos on staying active, writing letters and expressing concerns though. I do the exact same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Apr 18, 2017 20:21:58 GMT -5
Woody, I was only very minimally involved in any such interfaces with the DNR until nearing my retirement age. Too busy saving up for that early retirement until then. I did attend one meeting when there was a proposal that bows would have to be at least padlocked until legal shooting time, and some were pushing for them to be unstrung until then. Seems that some gun hunters were convinced that some of us sneaky archers were out there in the wee hours poaching with our silent weaponry 8^).
I wasn't at the meeting as a representative of anybody but myself, and wasn't an officer of the IBA then, though I had been a member for several years. I did see a handful of other IBA members there and was glad to help them express our shared opinion on that proposal.
I know we've spoken about the OBR before, and I still maintain that the IBA was only minimally effective in bringing it about, and it cost us dearly in terms of membership. We were sold the idea that it would be a temporary program to help the department get a better accounting of the effect of that restriction on the harvest percentages when the hunter would have to make the choice. Other states had gone to OBR of as a part of a package of changes done at the same time, but none had done the OBR change alone and waited a few years to do any other changes, to separate the effects of the changes.
There was NO incentive to us as an archery hunting association, to voluntarily leave a system where we were legally taking two bucks, to one where we had to decide if the buck that stood before us in archery season would be the one that would satisfy us for the year. I was an officer of the IBA by then, and helped with the polling, questioning, begging, etc., to get every opinion we could gather from those on either side of the issue before we took a stance on it as a group as per the results of all our polling, and notified the DNR of our support. We sure heard about it afterwards from many more than would yield us their opinions beforehand, including some of my own relatives and shooting buddies who quit the IBA in protest and never rejoined.
Lessons learned regarding "temporary solutions" proposed by the government, their promises of future behavior, and also regarding the likelihood of getting the silent majority to break their silence until AFTER their toes have been stepped on. But that's all ancient history.
Firstwd, I haven't looked into the CDAC program other than a quick scan of a thread that mentioned it. We may very well be in full agreement on the relative value of the two proposals. I'm only suggesting that the number of opinions expressed would probably change very little and that the value of the responses would likely be lowered pretty much proportionally
to any increase in their numbers. The more thoroughly informed voters are, and the more they have discussed the various facts and facets of a debated question, the more likely their opinions will be worth hearing and acting on.
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Apr 19, 2017 6:00:00 GMT -5
Science without policy is still science. Policy without science is gambling.
-Marcia McNutt, President, National Academy of Sciences.
|
|
