|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 18, 2010 15:13:11 GMT -5
I was following a thread on "changes" to the proposal on another site. Then their server hiccuped and that thread was lost. It was about IF any changes in the proposals were allowed or IF it was "buy it all or reject it all.."
Here is what the IDNR had to say about that -
|
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Jul 18, 2010 16:07:40 GMT -5
I was following a thread on "changes" to the proposal on another site. Then their server hiccuped and that thread was lost. It was about IF any changes in the proposals were allowed or IF it was "buy it all or reject it all.." Here is what the IDNR had to say about that - This did not come from a site I got shown the door on my first post was it  |
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jul 18, 2010 16:14:33 GMT -5
Well, there is a glimmer of hope then, IF everyone offers input.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 18, 2010 18:40:26 GMT -5
I was following a thread on "changes" to the proposal on another site. Then their server hiccuped and that thread was lost. It was about IF any changes in the proposals were allowed or IF it was "buy it all or reject it all.." Here is what the IDNR had to say about that - This did not come from a site I got shown the door on my first post was it No. The wording came from an IDNR email.. This can, and probably will, change before it is signed by Mitch.. |
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jul 18, 2010 19:17:00 GMT -5
I saw the conversation on that site. Very interesting how some of those comments played out, too bad it was lost in the shuffle. Just displayed how involved certain groups were part of the decision despite thier claims to be otherwise. And even more interesting was how certain groups wanted everyone to believe the DNR was set in stone on this and that voicing your concerns was a waste of your time and an attempt to sabatog the professionals.
Glad to see that was caught by a few, I wasn't suprised and based on that and a few other recent garbage on that site I am now done over there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 18, 2010 19:35:32 GMT -5
I saw the conversation on that site. Very interesting how some of those comments played out, too bad it was lost in the shuffle. Just displayed how involved certain groups were part of the decision despite thier claims to be otherwise. And even more interesting was how certain groups wanted everyone to believe the DNR was set in stone on this and that voicing your concerns was a waste of your time and an attempt to sabatog the professionals. Glad to see that was caught by a few, I wasn't suprised and based on that and a few other recent garbage on that site I am now done over there. You noticed that there was absolutely no rebutal of mine or Cedarthicket's data. IF a person was honest enough they can look at that and have to question what is going on? |
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jul 18, 2010 20:00:33 GMT -5
It's hard to rebut cold hard facts.
The more I digest the proposals the more I am miffed. Moving the traditional gun season and only allowing gun hunter 2 weekend to hunt with one of those weekend being a major family holliday where many families are driving to visit family. Really leaves 1 weekend for some hunters. That has really ticked me off. Then the only garentee for additional opportunity for the gun "meat" hunters is Christmas day to New Years...not much of a gain for those not in one of the "October" counties.
As I recall two of the groups that were/are "stakeholder" claimed it was all or nothing until another very informed/involved individual said that was only those two groups possition, not anyone else's and apparently this post now shows that also includes the DNR's oppinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by whiteoak on Jul 18, 2010 20:27:22 GMT -5
I saw the conversation on that site. Very interesting how some of those comments played out, too bad it was lost in the shuffle. Just displayed how involved certain groups were part of the decision despite thier claims to be otherwise. And even more interesting was how certain groups wanted everyone to believe the DNR was set in stone on this and that voicing your concerns was a waste of your time and an attempt to sabatog the professionals. Glad to see that was caught by a few, I wasn't suprised and based on that and a few other recent garbage on that site I am now done over there. You noticed that there was absolutely no rebutal of mine or Cedarthicket's data. IF a person was honest enough they can look at that and have to question what is going on? You know, IF a person was honest they would say the real reason for theses proposed rule changes. Balanced herd structure is not it. Even a dumb old country boy like me can see it's all about the almighty antler and those who pursue them with archery tackle. I myself am a bow hunter first and always will be. I do pick up my muzzle loader and use during firearms though. You would think I would be cheering. To be very honest with everybody, for some gut reason, I just can not do it. |
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Jul 18, 2010 20:42:42 GMT -5
Apparently i've missed out on alot, since i've been gone!
|
|
