|
Post by jackryan on May 10, 2017 23:40:37 GMT -5
Do you know what the word "politics" means? It wasn't a DNR decision for the good of the resource. It was a political decision made by the politicians who hounded their representatives at the urging of Joe Bacon, IDHA, and QDMA to TELL the IDNR what they wanted done. That's called politics. True Joe Bacon , the IDHA and IBA was involved in the process bugging Jim Mitchell to do it but no politicians were involved. Jim basically allowed this as it was a "social issue". More to get folks off his back than anything else. There was no huge outcry for an OBR. It was a dozen people sitting in a room in Indy. Now Greg will tell you that 70% like it and want to keep it, but that survey is very skewed in that 35% of the people surveyed are single season hunters that only killed one buck anyway and love it that two season hunter can now only kill one buck too. I got no disagreement with any of this. Other than if you think that is not politics. It is sure not based on any benefit to the resource nor based in any science. It's to keep his job and quiet the squeaky wheel. That's politics.
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on May 10, 2017 23:45:13 GMT -5
Not one person showed up to dissaprove of allowing the OBR when it's final approval was made.... that's pretty much a telling fact in its own! No really sure it was up to Jim Mitchell to allow it being it had no negative affects on the Deer Herd.... if any thing it was helping the Herd! Most hunters improve their hunting and are interested in hunting. Those who can't, go to meetings, over and over and over and over and over. Especially meetings in and around Indianapolis where the super meeters all live and work. If you can't hunt then have a meeting. People who hunt got fed up with meetings, you never out hunted them, you just out meeting them. That's the plain fact.
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on May 10, 2017 23:53:03 GMT -5
Was at the very meeting... not one person spoke in dissaproval! You can check the minutes if you wish... actually I believe that the the last year Jim was in charge of Deer! BTW.... I been around for.awhile before this forum was started to stop the OBR. Yeah, that was "the good old days" when only the folks in the general vicinity of Indy was in on the meetings. Mostly a handful from each of the "organized hunting groups" that the DNR had the perception that these groups represented all Indiana hunters..The rest of us were blindsided by the OBR.. The absolute best thing the DNR and NRC has ever done was to open up a line of two way conversation via the internet. IF they truly wanted direct and equal voice from the people who paid and made the effort to create the resource and people who promote and respect it they would eliminate the internet scams and the politicians and include issues and concerns in a ballot you receive with the purchase of hunting license each year and may be even ANOTHER ballot to give addition weight to the SUCCESSFUL participants to people who CHECK IN THEIR GAME ANIMALS. One license one vote, one kill one vote. Back packs and humane society phonies buzz off. Politicians and one issue Jonny come lately opportunists go back to golf. Hunting should be run by hunters, not phony cowboys shooting from the back of a whiskey keg and ginned up gun shop employees and paid gun shop lobbyist.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on May 11, 2017 5:32:36 GMT -5
Not one person showed up to dissaprove of allowing the OBR when it's final approval was made.... that's pretty much a telling fact in its own! No really sure it was up to Jim Mitchell to allow it being it had no negative affects on the Deer Herd.... if any thing it was helping the Herd! Most hunters improve their hunting and are interested in hunting. Those who can't, go to meetings, over and over and over and over and over. Especially meetings in and around Indianapolis where the super meeters all live and work. If you can't hunt then have a meeting. People who hunt got fed up with meetings, you never out hunted them, you just out meeting them. That's the plain fact. One thing for sure you sure know how to spin a subject when your at lost about reality.....lol
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 11, 2017 6:43:51 GMT -5
Yeah, that was "the good old days" when only the folks in the general vicinity of Indy was in on the meetings. Mostly a handful from each of the "organized hunting groups" that the DNR had the perception that these groups represented all Indiana hunters..The rest of us were blindsided by the OBR.. The absolute best thing the DNR and NRC has ever done was to open up a line of two way conversation via the internet. IF they truly wanted direct and equal voice from the people who paid and made the effort to create the resource and people who promote and respect it they would eliminate the internet scams and the politicians and include issues and concerns in a ballot you receive with the purchase of hunting license each year and may be even ANOTHER ballot to give addition weight to the SUCCESSFUL participants to people who CHECK IN THEIR GAME ANIMALS. One license one vote, one kill one vote. Back packs and humane society phonies buzz off. Politicians and one issue Jonny come lately opportunists go back to golf. Hunting should be run by hunters, not phony cowboys shooting from the back of a whiskey keg and ginned up gun shop employees and paid gun shop lobbyist. You mean like this? Firstfwd has an excellent idea... hunt-indiana.com/thread/58870/honest-alternative-cdac-program
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on May 11, 2017 6:51:05 GMT -5
So how would a non hunter give his input with that Idea?
Hunters are not the only ones that have a say.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on May 11, 2017 7:21:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on May 11, 2017 8:02:57 GMT -5
But would the average non hunter take that extra effort to voluntarily enroll.
That idea works good for a hunter.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on May 11, 2017 8:10:23 GMT -5
If the site is secure enough to use a CID number, how about using a driver's license number instead? Then hunters and non-hunters alike have a say.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on May 11, 2017 9:47:14 GMT -5
If the site is secure enough to use a CID number, how about using a driver's license number instead? Then hunters and non-hunters alike have a say. The CID number is linked to your Social Security number. If a non-hunter wants to provide their input, when they register on the site, they could be provided their CID number right then if they don't already have one.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on May 11, 2017 10:42:53 GMT -5
Any way that makes it possible for the largest amount of people to be able to be involved, while minimizing the opportunities for some that wish to post multiple times is fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on May 16, 2017 10:04:42 GMT -5
I recently email our deer biologist, Joe Caudell, asking about the expansion of the use of surveys and this is how he replied...
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on May 16, 2017 10:39:01 GMT -5
That would absolutely reach the largest number of people in the state, well above anything a DNR or CDAC meeting would ever dream of doing. It would also eliminate the bias towards the negative end of the spectrum that those meetings certainly generate. (Knowing that the majority of meeting attendees will be disgruntled.)
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on May 16, 2017 10:41:39 GMT -5
That would absolutely reach the largest number of people in the state, well above anything a DNR or CDAC meeting would ever dream of doing. It would also eliminate the bias towards the negative end of the spectrum that those meetings certainly generate. (Knowing that the majority of meeting attendees will be disgruntled.) My thoughts, as well. I am hopeful Joe is able to execute the plan well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 10:46:26 GMT -5
Using technology of getting down the grass roots solutions is always the best in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on May 16, 2017 13:21:15 GMT -5
That would absolutely reach the largest number of people in the state, well above anything a DNR or CDAC meeting would ever dream of doing. It would also eliminate the bias towards the negative end of the spectrum that those meetings certainly generate. (Knowing that the majority of meeting attendees will be disgruntled.) Exactly... The few making policy for the masses was the reason I got involved in these issues several years ago. I know that some feel a CDAC would solve those issues, but I don't. If you look @ the meetings that have been recorded and made public, it still appears that you have 20-30 people that purport to speak for many more people than that. I hope the IDNR continues down the path with something similar to what Joe Caudell outlined @ the meeting and that hunters and non-hunters alike can have their voices heard.
|
|