Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 16:17:29 GMT -5
Matt, your wearing blinders. The DNR owns II solely, its backed with biological input from its employees, not by special interest group wish lists as I was. As you say, I had Joe Bacon all over it, II does not
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Apr 6, 2011 16:37:13 GMT -5
Hypocrite is someone who participates in actions that they criticize others for doing.
This petition falls in line with what those pushing this petition incorrectly accused Woody and the members of this site of doing when comments were made regarding proposal #1.
So, if the label fits.....
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Apr 6, 2011 16:48:03 GMT -5
I do find it interesting on all of these sites that 1.0 was met with huge numbers of disapproving posts while 2.0 has met very little resistance.
Interesting indeed.....
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 6, 2011 16:57:40 GMT -5
The man is a class A hypocrite. ..............No, he didn't cause a fuss about proposal 1, probably because it was based on sound conservation (from our biologists, not the NRC), and provided measures (although probably inadvertently) to retain, or possibly even improve, the quality of deer hunting here in Indiana. No, no Mr. Finney. Chad said what they proposed on #1 was "unproven theory and experimental." Now, what does he say about #2 - THAT should be the end of the discussion....
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Apr 6, 2011 17:10:27 GMT -5
..............No, he didn't cause a fuss about proposal 1, probably because it was based on sound conservation (from our biologists, not the NRC), and provided measures (although probably inadvertently) to retain, or possibly even improve, the quality of deer hunting here in Indiana. No, no Mr. Finney. Chad said what they proposed on #1 was "unproven theory and experimental." Now, what does he say about #2 - THAT should be the end of the discussion....Now Woody....don't go clouding up the discussion with facts...... ;D
|
|
|
Post by duff on Apr 6, 2011 17:59:49 GMT -5
Same old stuff different day...
|
|
|
Post by old3arrows on Apr 6, 2011 18:24:37 GMT -5
How I view Mulligan and his articles!
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Apr 6, 2011 21:20:20 GMT -5
A mid summers night dream.....
|
|
|
Post by Indyhunter on Apr 6, 2011 21:52:35 GMT -5
How I view Mulligan and his articles! I tried not to sit back in my chair and literally laugh out loud, but I couldn't help it. (Okay, so no amount of trying would keep me from laughing, and agreeing 100%). Only difference is, I honestly do not read them any longer as they are a complete waste of my time. I get as much useful information from Dandy Don's articles as I do trying to read the fine print on an infomercial.
|
|
|
Post by speckle on Apr 7, 2011 6:12:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Apr 7, 2011 9:49:18 GMT -5
..............No, he didn't cause a fuss about proposal 1, probably because it was based on sound conservation (from our biologists, not the NRC), and provided measures (although probably inadvertently) to retain, or possibly even improve, the quality of deer hunting here in Indiana. No, no Mr. Finney. Chad said what they proposed on #1 was "unproven theory and experimental." Now, what does he say about #2 - THAT should be the end of the discussion....Thank you Woody, obviously Mr. Finney and Mr. Mulligan have an agenda and willing to say what they want to justify the end result.
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Apr 7, 2011 10:11:06 GMT -5
Believe me, the crossbow folks have an agenda as well....
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Apr 7, 2011 10:29:49 GMT -5
so? They aint looking to take anything away from anyone. Same cant be said for the crowd youre running with. Like a newborn puppy, your eyes will open eventually
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Apr 7, 2011 10:51:17 GMT -5
Not looking to take anything away?
Well I guess that depends on how you look at it.
If we were to add shotguns and pcr's to muzzleloader season, wouldn't that be effectively doing away (taking away) with muzzleloader season? We would no longer have a muzzleloader season, we would only have 2 firearms seasons...right?
Surely you can see how adding crossbows to archery season would do the same thing?
I'm not sure that I will be changing my mind anytime soon....you see, I used to be like you trapperdave. I thought bowhunting was too tough, and that I should be allowed to use crossbows for deer in archery season. However, as I've grown, I've come to realize the value in having a portion of deer season that is reserved for more challenging weapons. Maybe trapper, you to will one day have to ability to reason, and gain insight.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Apr 7, 2011 11:37:08 GMT -5
I am not a Don fan, by any stretch.
However, I do suspect that he's right about the need for further reduction of the herd. Our system of basing the need for herd reduction on the previous harvest numbers has some built-in errors.
The DNR keeps increasing the availablity of antlerless permits and increasing the opportunities, including relaxing weapons restrictions. Then the increased kill numbers "prove" that further reductions are needed, so they increase the permits and the opportunities and further relax the weapons restrictions.....Doesn't anyone else see the potential problem with that process?
I asked Mr. Stewart about the factors considered regarding the herd reduction goals and he verified that they were primarily based on recent years kill numbers. He also mentioned that some of the other data collected and considered included road kills, which had shown a dramatic decrease last year, but that data was discounted because of a change in the data collection that they thought may have affected the accuracy. Hmmm....
Sounds reasonable, but I keep wondering if they're discounting the wrong conflicting info.
Nearly everyone I've talked to about deer sightings this past season said they were down, and my own sightings of both live deer and roadkills were drastically down, and seemed to agree more with the drastically reduced roadkill figures that the department is discounting.
I don't think it's a matter of plots and schemes and conspiracies as much as it is the department following a policy that has long been in place that may well be resulting in their actions being completely out of synch with the reality of the actual herd numbers.
My experience in the workplace has demonstrated repeatedly to me over the years that an established practice, even if it's faulty, is terribly hard to correct. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, the established practice is usually chosen as the guide in any question, because of the power of being "the way we've always done it". What I've been able to glean from the DNR so far has not been reassuring in demonstrating that they are not repeating the same path in following a misleading guideline.
I was vocal about my objections to the first set of proposals, and expressed them in my input.
I am also opposed to the second set, although less so, for some of the same reasons.
My biggest objection to the first set was the mid-October gun season. I think that was a terrible idea on several levels.
My remaining objections are based mostly on the questions I have about the accuracy of the herd numbers that the reduction goals are based on. I think more time and study should be devoted to determining that accuracy before further actions are taken to reduce the herd. That would include the addition of another weapon to the archery season for use by those without a physical impairment, that has the potential to substantially extend the effective range of many hunters.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Apr 7, 2011 12:06:54 GMT -5
Not looking to take anything away? Well I guess that depends on how you look at it. If we were to add shotguns and pcr's to muzzleloader season, wouldn't that be effectively doing away (taking away) with muzzleloader season? We would no longer have a muzzleloader season, we would only have 2 firearms seasons...right? Surely you can see how adding crossbows to archery season would do the same thing? I'm not sure that I will be changing my mind anytime soon....you see, I used to be like you trapperdave. I thought bowhunting was too tough, and that I should be allowed to use crossbows for deer in archery season. However, as I've grown, I've come to realize the value in having a portion of deer season that is reserved for more challenging weapons. Maybe trapper, you to will one day have to ability to reason, and gain insight. Finney, You were wrong about your info yesterday (Thanks Woody) and you are wrong about TrapperDave today. TD hunts with traditional archery gear.....and obviously is more open minded about other forms of archery equipment than you appear to be.
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Apr 7, 2011 12:29:56 GMT -5
you were never like me, Mathew
|
|
|
Post by INDeerhunter on Apr 7, 2011 13:17:30 GMT -5
Maybe I am missing something here about the crossbow thing ? I hunt mainly during the archery season in fact there have been many years that I hunt with a bow throughout deer season ( meaning I only hunt with a bow from Oct. thru Jan. ). I own, hunt, and shoot regularly a traditional recurve and a compound bow, a couple years ago I picked up a crossbow and now shoot it fairly regularly as well but I havent hunted deer with it. The anti-crossbow guys on here I have a question for you, HAVE YOU EVEN SHOT A CROSSBOW ? I dont mean to sound rude or mean and Im not tryint to disrespect anyone at all with my comments. I just simply mean have you tried shooting a crossbow ?? They are not laser aimed, 1000 fps, heat seeking "guns" by any means. In my experience with archery equipment the crossbow is no more accurate, easier to shoot, or give more range than my compound or recurve !!! In fact thats one of the main reasons I have yet to hunt with it in the late season, I am more accurate, more comfortable, and have an easier more silent ability to use a traditional or compound bow than the crossbow ! Grant it I have been shooting the stick and string for close to 20 yrs now and the crossbow only a couple years but they arent "deer killing machines" like some guys may think. In fact arrows shot out of my compound bow drop less at 40 yards than the bolts from the crossbow ! I just dont see why some guys are worried that the introduction of crossbows to early archery season is going to destroy the archery season. The crossbow is NOT a better choice IMO than a recurve, compound, or longbow and they arent (IMO) going to lessen the chances of a "traditional" bowhunter at harvesting quality deer becuz there will be guys in the woods with crossbows. Heck it might even help the average bowhunter having guys jumpin on the crossbow wagon becuz in my experience they arent as accurate, quiet, or "more deadly" than what we bowhunters have been using for years ! I hope that came across the way I meant for it and no one takes offense to it or feels disrespected. ~ INDeerhunter ~
|
|
|
Post by INDeerhunter on Apr 7, 2011 13:36:06 GMT -5
Just to add a lil more on that haha ! my buddy has a compound bow that he hunts with that actually shoots faster than alot of the xbows that are on the market today ! So if some of the anti-xbow guys are going to stick with the speed part of it there are compounds out there shooting faster than xbows.
Also I have practiced shooting a xbow out of a treestand and thats a whole nother world compared to shooting a bow from as well lol.
I was kinda on the fence when I first heard about the introduction of the xbow into deer season myself, but then I thought about it a lil more and Im not againist the implication to any weapon into deer season as long as everyone has the same opprutunity to use them and they are added to the right season. I dont see why the xbow shouldnt be allowed during archery season.
IMO the xbow is just more or less another gimmick, another way for some guys to think they are gettin an advantage over the next guy to harvest the elusive whitetail ! But when you put one in your hand and get out there shooting one for awhile you will realize they arent giving an advantage over anyone. The xbow is NOT more accurate, easier to use, faster, or even more easily manevuered than a compound, recurve, or longbow (IMO) !
Thats just my 2 cents on the matter though, and everyone is entitled to their opinion ! But I think the anti-xbow guys should get out there a shoot one a few times and see if you are better with it than you are with what you have now, and research it a little, there are a few youtube videos showing the trajectory of a compound versus a xbow that are very interesting. I have even seen a few videos on the pentration of a xbow bolt versus that of an arrow and even that I wasnt impressed by with the xbow.
Thanks for reading my 2 cents, feel free to explain your 2 cents to me, just please do it in the same respectful way that I tried to do it in lol.
~ INDeerhunter ~
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Apr 7, 2011 13:48:23 GMT -5
INDeerhunter, Visit this webpage: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gly3bafUhcUYour crossbow might not be very accurate, but trust me, it's the exception. Modern crossbows are extremely accurate, and no crossbows require any archery skills. Here's another thought, if crossbows are no more effective than bows, and they won't recruit any more hunters, would it make any sense at all to make their addition part of a deer reduction plan? my 2 cents
|
|