Wouldn't you expect it...

Dan Salmon
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 7:52 am

Wouldn't you expect it...

Postby Dan Salmon » Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:53 am

Wouldn't have expected anything less from the bow hunters groups.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/documents/dtr/proposals/Publiclandsantlerless.pdf

Put a quota out for the gun hunters, but let the bow hunters do as they want.

Any quotas, should apply equally for gun/bow/muzzleloader and should be based on the entire fall hunting season starting in September and ending in January or when the quotas are met, just like they are for MVP Goose hunters and the like.

All this does if continue to fuel the animosity between gun and bow hunters, nothing more, nothing less.

User avatar
kellory
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Wouldn't you expect it...

Postby kellory » Sun Jun 09, 2013 11:50 am

I would suggest you re-read that report.

"This document shows the original Deer Trustee Report recommendation that the Public Action Team
considered when developing proposals for implementing the recommendation in Wisconsin. The Public
Action Team’s implementation proposal is then presented followed by a brief summary by the WDNR."

I see nothing showing any bow hunter finagling.
The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

Dan Salmon
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 7:52 am

Re: Wouldn't you expect it...

Postby Dan Salmon » Sun Jun 09, 2013 12:02 pm

Kellory,

May I suggest you re-read the report.

One can tell that the action team is chock full of bow hunters group members, all the suggestions are the same as what has been preached all year by those same groups. Stack the teams with members and there is no way you are not the majority vote.

The DNR summary is not included, it will come later in the summer after the DTR implementation action teams are completed.

And yes, there is definitely bow hunter finagling.

How do you suppose that there are no changes to current regulations for anyone other than gun hunters in regard to antlerless quotas on public lands? Just by stroke of pure luck this happened? C'mon, I know you weren't born yesterday.

User avatar
kellory
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Wouldn't you expect it...

Postby kellory » Sun Jun 09, 2013 12:40 pm

Dan Salmon wrote:Kellory,

May I suggest you re-read the report.

One can tell that the action team is chock full of bow hunters group members, all the suggestions are the same as what has been preached all year by those same groups. Stack the teams with members and there is no way you are not the majority vote.

The DNR summary is not included, it will come later in the summer after the DTR implementation action teams are completed.

And yes, there is definitely bow hunter finagling.

How do you suppose that there are no changes to current regulations for anyone other than gun hunters in regard to antlerless quotas on public lands? Just by stroke of pure luck this happened? C'mon, I know you weren't born yesterday.

I go by facts I can check and cross reference. I see nothing in print, showing anything other than a result you do not like. You are making assumptions based on your guesses. Prove you case. Not "everybody knows" or "of course it is", or "the results prove it" because they don't. Prove it, by facts that can be looked up and checked. Posted statements? twittered twits? voting records? reports? stated opinions of those you claim are pushing this? Have they bought hunting permits? which kinds? prove your case.
The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

wilmer thrun
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:12 am

Re: Wouldn't you expect it...

Postby wilmer thrun » Sun Jun 09, 2013 12:52 pm

Dan is an anti (as well as non) bowhunter so he always has a beef with bowhunters. The recommendation reads as follows:

“Restrict the days of hunting with allowable harvest on public lands – public land is defined as any property with public access. Let the DNR decide the days. Bow hunting and muzzleloader season will remain unchanged. Youth will be exempt from this.”

Since the public’s objection was overharvest of antlerless deer by FIREAMRS hunters during the many special FIREARMS antlerless hunts, the team did the right thing addressing the concerns of the public rather than inventing a non-issues to address. The public was vocal in that the many antlerless FIREARMS hunts drove people to public land for antlerless deer which in turn was over hunted and over harvested during FIREARMS hunts especially land owners that protected their own lands from antlerless harvest with FIREARMS so they were going to public lands for antlerless deer during FIREAMS antlerless hunts and saving the deer on their private land until the 9 day FIRARMS deer hunt. The documents speaks specifically to this when it says:

“During the Town Hall Meetings, we heard many comments about private landowners killing antlerless deer on public lands but not on their own land.”

The lions share of antlerless harvest comes from FIREARMS hunters, not bowhunters or ML hunters or youth hunters. When the many special antlerless FIREARMS hunts took place, they were not bowhunts, they were not ML hunts, they were not youth hunts. The public gets this even if Dan does not.

As such, addressing the concerns of antlerless FIREARMS hunts was the focus of the committee. They agreed that the preferred methods was to limit the number of days that antlerless harvests could take place on public lands. They agreed that if the DNR were to hold an antlerless FIREARMS hunt that it would only take place on private lands. This would protect public lands from over harvest thus addressing the concerns of hunters. I contend this will backfire when public land hunters object to only the private land owners getting a special hunt leaving public only hunters without days or places to hunt.

This was not some bowhunter scheme to screw over somebody else (unless you’re an anti-bowhunter like Dan and want to invent controversy were none exists)

Dan Salmon
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 7:52 am

Re: Wouldn't you expect it...

Postby Dan Salmon » Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:50 pm

wilmer thrun wrote:Dan is an anti (as well as non) bowhunter so he always has a beef with bowhunters. The recommendation reads as follows:

“Restrict the days of hunting with allowable harvest on public lands – public land is defined as any property with public access. Let the DNR decide the days. Bow hunting and muzzleloader season will remain unchanged. Youth will be exempt from this.”

Since the public’s objection was overharvest of antlerless deer by FIREAMRS hunters during the many special FIREARMS antlerless hunts, the team did the right thing addressing the concerns of the public rather than inventing a non-issues to address. The public was vocal in that the many antlerless FIREARMS hunts drove people to public land for antlerless deer which in turn was over hunted and over harvested during FIREARMS hunts especially land owners that protected their own lands from antlerless harvest with FIREARMS so they were going to public lands for antlerless deer during FIREAMS antlerless hunts and saving the deer on their private land until the 9 day FIRARMS deer hunt. The documents speaks specifically to this when it says:

“During the Town Hall Meetings, we heard many comments about private landowners killing antlerless deer on public lands but not on their own land.”

The lions share of antlerless harvest comes from FIREARMS hunters, not bowhunters or ML hunters or youth hunters. When the many special antlerless FIREARMS hunts took place, they were not bowhunts, they were not ML hunts, they were not youth hunts. The public gets this even if Dan does not.

As such, addressing the concerns of antlerless FIREARMS hunts was the focus of the committee. They agreed that the preferred methods was to limit the number of days that antlerless harvests could take place on public lands. They agreed that if the DNR were to hold an antlerless FIREARMS hunt that it would only take place on private lands. This would protect public lands from over harvest thus addressing the concerns of hunters. I contend this will backfire when public land hunters object to only the private land owners getting a special hunt leaving public only hunters without days or places to hunt.

This was not some bowhunter scheme to screw over somebody else (unless you’re an anti-bowhunter like Dan and want to invent controversy were none exists)


Here you are Kellory. As requested.

User avatar
kellory
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Wouldn't you expect it...

Postby kellory » Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:53 pm

......And the true numbers (broken down by weapon, season and location) would be ....what? What was the true take, and how was it taken? That might shed some light on truth and fiction both.
I have seen this type of behavior before, though. shooting only special deer on private land (as if in reserve) and on public land, if it's brown, it's down. This may be a perfectly reasonable counter for that behavior. Maybe not. Of course, no one has offered any numbers (yet) to back either claim.
The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

wilmer thrun
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:12 am

Re: Wouldn't you expect it...

Postby wilmer thrun » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:56 pm

Dan, your assertion is that the deer trustee action teams are made up of bowhunters bent on advancing the desires of bowhunters while disadvantaging gun deer hunters. The title of your thread and the words you used show that the reason you created the thread was to lay blame and indict the members of these teams as a group of bowhunters acting badly. You even said “Wouldn't have expected anything less from the bow hunters groups.”

And

“Put a quota out for the gun hunters, but let the bow hunters do as they want.”

You were asked by Kellory to produce something of substance to back up your claim. You have not been able to do so. You then trotted out hyperbole about people being too naive to spot what only your keen eye can see. Again, you have produced nothing of substance to back up your false claim.

The deer trustee action teams are made up of all gun deer hunters and only a portion of them are also bowhunters so your claim is bogus. Gun deer hunters greatly outnumber the bowhunters on these teams yet you assert that the bowhunters are somehow shutting down the gun hunters and disadvantaging the gun hunters which is just silly. You would do well to actually attend these meetings to get the truth rather than manufacturing bogus conspiracies in your head that don’t match with the truth.

You’re a non (and anti) bowhunter so its natural that you would keep with your current diatribe against bowhunters even if it makes you look silly and is not at all based in truth. You only want to believe the all powerful bowhunters are scheming and overpowering the greater number of gun hunters on these committees. How about actually producing some facts or data to back up rather than just pointing out what you want to see and an outcome you don’t like as somehow being all the proof you need.

You created this thread to try to manufacture some sort of bowhunter scheme to disadvantage gun deer hunters and even linked a document hoping it would support your false claim but like kellory stated, what you hope to create does not exist in the document. You could have just as easily stated that the nasty muzzleloader hunters or the youth deer hunters took over this committee just to advantage themselves and to screw gun hunters since ML hunters and youth hunters are also exempt from the rule.

What you fail to understand (or accept) is that this group based its decision on what was being asked by the public in that when the DNR creates an special antlerless firearms hunt, its always a firearms hunt and the public worries that land owning, gun deer hunters were going to public lands to fill their doe tags and protecting their private lands and how that was unfair. Never did the public complain that this was archery related or ML or youth hunt related. Its always been understood that the Oct antlerless control hunt, the Dec antlerless hunt and the holiday antlerless hunt and any other antlerless hunt was always a firearms hunt. As such, the committee acknowledges this fact and came to the conclusion that in order to address the concerns of the public, when the DNR schedules a special antlerless hunt that it be held only on private lands to protect from over harvest of antlerless deer on public lands which already get pounded hard enough during the regular gun deer season.

Im sure none of what I type mattered a lick to you since you are blind with rage against bowhunters and you are not interested in facts or reason and will only believe what you want to hear. This reply is for the more reasonable folks that read these pages to show that the bogus claim you make against bowhunters is pure BS because you will read what I typed and somehow twist it into being proof that what you thought all along was true. You will read this and throw a single finger skyward and shout AH HA! See, I told you it was those nasty bowhunters scheming to screw over gun hunters.

You could do yourself a real credit (and prove your point) if you listed the members of the team you chastise and then list their affiliation to bowhunting orgs. Then you would actually have some substance to back up your claim. Can you do that? Then you can say with certainty that this group is just a bunch of bowhunters looking to screw over the gun deer hunters. But you wont do that. If you did bother to look into it you would find that the group is made up of 100% gun deer hunters and only a portion of them are bowhunters and that would debunk your bogus claim. Its up to you. You’re the one that brings this matter up and claims that its bowhunters fault. Prove it.

Dan Salmon
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 7:52 am

Re: Wouldn't you expect it...

Postby Dan Salmon » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:39 pm

When the quota language changes to a seasonal quota (Sept - Jan), no matter the weapon or season, a specific number of antlerless tags filled for the entire season (Sept - Jan.) to the quota point, then it is buck only the remainder of the time be it the first week of October or the quota is never reached, then I'll believe it.

If there is going to be a quota, then it should apply to all and apply equally.

If the resource is so fragile that killing too many antlerless deer is the problem, then there shouldn't be an issue with changing this language.

If that isn't the problem, and it's a game hog problem, then there is a better way of fixing it than putting quotas on those that aren't game hogs and just want to hunt deer.

User avatar
kellory
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Wouldn't you expect it...

Postby kellory » Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:51 pm

Dan Salmon wrote:When the quota language changes to a seasonal quota (Sept - Jan), no matter the weapon or season, a specific number of antlerless tags filled for the entire season (Sept - Jan.) to the quota point, then it is buck only the remainder of the time be it the first week of October or the quota is never reached, then I'll believe it.

If there is going to be a quota, then it should apply to all and apply equally.

If the resource is so fragile that killing too many antlerless deer is the problem, then there shouldn't be an issue with changing this language.

If that isn't the problem, and it's a game hog problem, then there is a better way of fixing it than putting quotas on those that aren't game hogs and just want to hunt deer.

So....only when you get your way, you will believe there is no bias? pardon my french, but that is Merde. I hunt with every weapon available to me. longbow, compound, crossbow, and shotgun. Does that make me one of your evil bowhunters?
Any worthwhile "Evil Bowman's" group would not stop at state borders, i think, that would be thinking way too small. perhaps by region? southern states under one chapter? Midwest under another? And maybe a third to cover the western states? i don't remember signing up, but maybe they have those "Men in Black Flashie-thingies" and i just don't remember the secret oath to impinge on the rights of gun hunters everywhere? As a gun hunter myself, would that not make me self-hating, and schizophrenic?
You made a wild claim, with nothing but opinion behind it. I asked you to back it up with facts of some kind, and got "HA, see that!" I suggested a method to prove some truth one way or another, and got back, "I'll believe it when it's done my way". ....so far you are batting zero. The other team has left the field, and you still haven't scored here. have you got anything actually provable?
The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

Next

Return to Wisconsin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests