|
|
Post by gundude on Jul 29, 2010 20:29:08 GMT -5
Jack asked me to post the following: Having gone thru this process before I can honestly say that IDNR is a very timid organization. They will usually try and work with one group or another to get legislation introduced or to try and fight legislation they don't professionally believe in. In one case the DNR was told not to bring any new legislation to the Summer Study a few years back. IDNR approached some of us about introducing the concept of the apprentice license. On the surface it looks like we came up with this great idea but it was pushed by IDNR. That said the "stakeholder" groups involved in the DNR deer proposals are all good men with a lot more at "stake" and a lot more deer knowledge than I have. If you look closely at HB1585 that Rep. Friend intoduced and caused all this you might get an idea of where some of the ideas came from: www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2009/HB/HB1585.2.htmlSynopsis: Deer hunting bag limits. Requires the director of the department of natural resources to increase the seasonal bag limit and increase the length of the hunting season for deer in the 30 counties that had the highest number of collisions involving deer and motor vehicles during the previous year. Increases the seasonal limit for antlerless deer. Allows a person to hunt deer and turkey with a crossbow during the same season that a person may hunt deer and turkey with a shotgun or rifle. Bottomline guys I don't beleive in any sort of collusion by the stakeholders to get their way. I know some of the stakeholders don't want ALL of the proposal but their job was to support IDNR which they did. I also agree with Dave Delaney that now is the time for IDNR to step up and take charge of this before they lose everything. The stakeholders have nothing to gain by holding their own meetings. They only stand to lose and should back out and let the DNR handle this. HatchetJack P.S. I encourage everyone of you concerned with this issue to make calls, educate yourself and keep an open mind as this process goes forward. I know I'm still waiting on data to support some of these ideas. In the end the process will grind out a decision and we'll learn to live with it. Join IDHA or IBA or ISR or whatever group you think holds your core beliefs and then work hard for the wildlife we all love. |
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jul 29, 2010 21:32:40 GMT -5
I don't think any of those groups represent my core beliefs! It will be intersting to see how this all pans out in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jul 29, 2010 21:43:32 GMT -5
Two of the "stakeholders" no longer represent my values. As Reagan once said, " I didn't leave them, they left me."
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jul 29, 2010 22:17:22 GMT -5
Thanks for providing Jack's message gundude. He has always been about the only one that I have learned to listen to when he puts words out there for us to read.
I agree with his concerns, the way this has played out so far DNR has damage control to do and as a result also damaged those identified as stake holders. Then some of the stake holder are only agrivating the situation with their actions. Very frustrating to everyone and I don't see any winners out of this cluster.
Please tell Jack thanks for his words.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Jul 30, 2010 5:01:35 GMT -5
I don't think any of those groups represent my core beliefs! It will be intersting to see how this all pans out in the end. Couldn't have said it any better myself. I appreciate the comments and input from hatchetjack don't get me wrong. But with all the comments from some on the other site and even some on here it's hard to believe the "stakeholders" don't have an ulterior motive and that they truly want to represent the average deer hunter. With all the evidence we have seen to date there is no way possible this is about anything but antler size. If it was truly about herd reduction we would be like all the other states with to many deer and expanding seasons. |
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jul 30, 2010 5:14:46 GMT -5
I agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecommissioner on Jul 30, 2010 5:49:37 GMT -5
Hatchetjack writes: "Bottomline guys I don't beleive (sic) in any sort of collusion by the stakeholders to get their way. I know some of the stakeholders don't want ALL of the proposal but their job was to support IDNR which they did."
"Their job?" Did I read that correctly? The stakeholders' "job" is to "support" the IDNR? He can't be serious.
If there is any job to be done, it is to advise the IDNR during its process of research, analysis, and assessment of risk. Supposedly the stakeholders are subject matter experts who benefit the IDNR with their practical experience. But when the SME's think they are cheerleaders, something went haywire.
The proposed rule that prohibits the use of a crossbow during archery season until a hunter has reached the age of 64 is undenial proof that some stakeholders were acting not as SME's but as self serving lobbyists. How could an arbitrary age cutoff that is patently discriminatory have come from experts in an advisory role? Can you say wolves in sheep's clothing?
It is a shame that no one from the IDNR recognized lobbying when they saw it and expelled the lobbyists from the meeting.
|
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Jul 30, 2010 6:19:28 GMT -5
I don't think any of those groups represent my core beliefs! It will be intersting to see how this all pans out in the end. DITTO! |
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jul 30, 2010 6:36:15 GMT -5
The "stakeholder" group never should have existed in the first place; I guess my definition of "good men" is different than yours. If the DNR wants the doe population reduced they should do some homework and present it to the hunting community at large. Show us there is a problem and we will support you. I think most of us care enough about the herd and it's future we could get behind a playing with the seasons to increase the doe harvest, even if it means passing on a taking a buck for a year - then go back the way it has been and evaluate the results - but this sham: not a chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldhoyt on Jul 30, 2010 6:36:56 GMT -5
No Sale!!! Stakeholders push their agendas. That is all they do. All this talk of supporting IDNR and compromise is BS.
In my most recent e-mail in response to the "NRC letter" I told them that IDNR needs only to consider stakeholder input for what it is worth - agenda driven, biased input that is exactly opposite of the desires of the average hunter. I also pointed out that the average hunter is the funding source of the IDNR.
In all of my e-mails (5 now), I have reiterated that if the IDNR wants to kill more deer, the ONLY way to do that is to enable the greatest number of hunters to be in the field, equipped with the most efficient tools, at the time of highest deer activity. This equates to scheduling opening day of firearms during the chase phase of the rut. I have not heard or read anything that convinces me otherwise. I'm not bragging, but I do have a 4-year degree in wildlife management, so I'm not just blowing "stakeholder" smoke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2010 8:44:31 GMT -5
The DNR completely ignored the largest stakeholders and the ones that have the most at stake.......those that don't belong to any of the stakeholder groups.
I'd like to see a letter from Jack and/or the DNR on just how many sportsmen belong to these groups and exactly who they represent.
I don't think there is any doubt that the DNR had plenty of options beside taking the Stakeholders wish list and putting out to the mushrooms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jul 30, 2010 8:52:16 GMT -5
The "stakeholder" group never should have existed in the first place; Amen!!! |
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Jul 30, 2010 9:00:30 GMT -5
The simple fact the crossbow regulations are what they are tells everyone which "stakeholders have a voice." The arguements against crossbows during all seasons does not compute and makes me believe our DNR's is a bunch of foolish idiots.
|
|
|
|
Post by BOBinIN on Jul 30, 2010 9:08:18 GMT -5
Jack asked me to post the following: Allows a person to hunt deer and turkey with a crossbow during the same season that a person may hunt deer and turkey with a shotgun or rifle. Getting a little off topic here but when is a RIFLE a legal weapon for TURKEY hunting? |
|
|
|
Post by catahecassa on Jul 30, 2010 9:39:00 GMT -5
Jack asked me to post the following: Bottomline guys I don't beleive in any sort of collusion by the stakeholders to get their way. ...Join IDHA or IBA or ISR or whatever group you think holds your core beliefs and then work hard for the wildlife we all love. "holds your core beliefs" BEING the 500 pound gorilla!!! APPARENTLY the leadership of these groups listen to the 'rank & file' ABOUT as well as our "leaders" in DC!!!!! A few PRIME examples taken DIRECTLY from the NRC or AC meeting minutes: (this one isn't about DEER hunting - but shows the same level of disconnect!) Jack Corpuz, from Indianapolis, commented, “Although the Sportsman‟s Roundtable and the Board had given approval to this, the membership has not” noting that several members of Indiana Bowhunters Association, the Deer Hunters Association, and Sportsman‟s Roundtable, are not satisfied with this proposed rule. He said that the Deer Hunters Association‟s website indicates a 9 to 1 ratio in favor of keeping the dogs out in the woods for the month of October.... ...Allman added that he had only learned of this agreement less than two weeks before and explained that the groups‟ leaders may have reached this compromise but “the rank and file aren‟t aware of this.” *************************************** Kevin Smith indicated he was presenting “pretty much a core group of the most active participants with the Indiana Deer Hunters Association”. He said the group agreed that the existing firearms season is “long enough and none of them need to be extended or changed; the archery season should be extended to the second Sunday in January; and doe only seasons should start the Saturday after Christmas and extend to second Sunday in January filling all unused tags. |
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jul 30, 2010 10:22:44 GMT -5
The IDNR ~ BOY WHAT A MESS!!  |
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jul 30, 2010 11:28:52 GMT -5
Now that is interesting info, seems as time goes on, the light is shining more and more.
|
|
|
|
Post by deerman1 on Jul 30, 2010 17:11:00 GMT -5
With this proposal package they a"The IDNR " do not have any of mine or my groups support at all .And as for the stakeholders representing our core values as average deer hunters that is pure Baloney .They are in no way ever going to represent me with their elitist ideology and they are whet I call the anti Christ in this case . My mind was shut the minute they reduced and moved a season that allowed me to pursue deer in an intelligent manor.
|
|
