|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 1, 2015 22:55:15 GMT -5
Don't worry about the readers of this forum. Not your concern. Everything I posted is cut and pasted from the internet, it must be true. Uhhh. Bonjour? I say don't worry about the readers of this site as it is a site against maprs. If you don't agree, don't come here. That simple. You think there is no misinformation on the anti-choice sites? I don't know, every time I point it out, I get banned. You are welcome to post here, just don't play games. If I would have my way you would have been banned here in the summer, but we do need a token. |
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Dec 3, 2015 6:54:19 GMT -5
This is in response to Fieldnfeathers in a different thread that was closed.
First, I did not call you names. That seems to be the first thing the MAR's supporters jump on to discredit those opposed to their agenda.
I am the type of person that calls a spade a spade. If you had raped someone, I would call you a rapist. If you had murdered someone, I would call you a murderer. Would I be a name caller? Your actions of dictating hunting preferences for others are arrogant, like it or not. That makes you an arrogant person by definition. Would you ever come to my property and tell me what I can and cannot shoot? I didn't think so as that would be the height of arrogance. So why is it OK to find a small group of like minded individuals to do the same thing? Courage in numbers?
Your agenda of passing on younger bucks may be admirable, but your chosen route to impose this agenda on others is unethical. Just because this is the popular route chosen by politicians today does NOT make it right.
Now to the moderator, closing a thread that is as active as that one was is not right. Who are you protecting, them or us? |
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on Dec 3, 2015 9:21:58 GMT -5
This is in response to Fieldnfeathers in a different thread that was closed.
First, I did not call you names. That seems to be the first thing the MAR's supporters jump on to discredit those opposed to their agenda.
I am the type of person that calls a spade a spade. If you had raped someone, I would call you a rapist. If you had murdered someone, I would call you a murderer. Would I be a name caller? Your actions of dictating hunting preferences for others are arrogant, like it or not. That makes you an arrogant person by definition. Would you ever come to my property and tell me what I can and cannot shoot? I didn't think so as that would be the height of arrogance. So why is it OK to find a small group of like minded individuals to do the same thing? Courage in numbers?
Your agenda of passing on younger bucks may be admirable, but your chosen route to impose this agenda on others is unethical. Just because this is the popular route chosen by politicians today does NOT make it right.
Now to the moderator, closing a thread that is as active as that one was is not right. Who are you protecting, them or us? Outside of my own property, I'm not telling you to do anything, or forcing you to. The hunters of Michigan have/are/and will. This has nothing to do with arrogance. I'm sorry you feel that way. I truly am a fairly humble and down to earth guy in life. |
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Dec 3, 2015 10:11:12 GMT -5
A humble and down to earth guy would never support an agenda like MANDATORY antler point restrictions unless he does not have enough character and drinks the proverbial Kool-aid. |
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Dec 3, 2015 14:32:10 GMT -5
Percentages mean very little when actual harvest numbers are ignored. Nobody ignores actual harvest numbers. When you see the data that shows at or near historical harvest numbers, as has been shown in Leelanau, what will your position be then? I'm not talking about percentages here. I'm talking the number of bucks on the ground. If the harvest number is fairly consistent along historical levels pre and post APR, how can that be considered a bad thing? Saying that it would be bad would make absolutely no sense. The problem with that is in Leelanau the DNR grew the herd under the MARs and reduced the herd in the surrounding DMUs. No question that the leadership in the DNR wildlife division is on the side of the QDMA . That is the way it has been since he took over and he has made no secret of that . And along with that ,other key DNR and NRC members were and some still are on the side of the QDMA and MARs. All this leads to data that is skewed in favor of the MARs regs . That is not the case in other state after state where it shows there is a substantial decrease in the harvest under MARs. |
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on Dec 3, 2015 14:40:14 GMT -5
So, to clarify......Are you actually saying that the harvest numbers (read not percentages) in the other NW12 counties, which is done by the annual harvest survey, will be tainted?
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Dec 3, 2015 16:14:40 GMT -5
So, to clarify......Are you actually saying that the harvest numbers (read not percentages) in the other NW12 counties, which is done by the annual harvest survey, will be tainted? It depends on how you use the word "tainted" ( tainted doesn't always have to mean something intentional or that they were collected in the wrong way). If you restrict the harvest of bucks and the population stays stable the number of bucks will be reduced ( forget about your belief that it will only be for the first year for a minute ) Now if you restrict the harvest of bucks and allow the population to rise at the same time you are creating more bucks overall and that will cancel out the downturn the restriction caused with out the population increase. So now the only way to know if the same number would have been harvested with the restriction in place would be to remove the effect of the population increase. That was not done and then Mars were promoted as the same number being harvested after MARs as was harvested before.
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Dec 3, 2015 18:31:42 GMT -5
You just said that areas outside of Leelanau were reduced intentionally. So if the numbers return to baseline after the first few years, your post above would make absolutely no sense. So, did they increase or decrease the population outside of Leelanau? At this point, you've said both, so I'm just wanting to clarify. I was saying that in Leelanau the DNR increased the deer heard at the same time they enacted MARs and at that same time the DNR was reducing the population in the surrounding DMUs that did not have MARs at that time. And that in turn manipulated the perception of how successful the MARs in Leelanau have been. You know the numbers that got/get used to show how successful MARs have been in Leelanau to counter all the other states that show data to the contrary .
Now.. The population in the current NWLP DMUs may or may not be changing since MARs have been enacted there .( we have moved on to a different timeframe ) The DNR says no but hunters say yes.......the DNR put themselves in a corner when they put the biased wording in that survey they sent out, both in the new MARs DMUs and in the Leelanau DMU. Only time will tell what the population is currently doing!
One other thing that plays into this is hunter numbers. The QDMA is really pushing how good the hunting has become in the NWLP MARs zone and that is going to cause a big increase of hunters to the area . That in turn means the same or more bucks could be harvested due to more pressure but the buck to hunter ratio could tell another story. They know this and how it will change the data to their advantage in the next two years leading up to the revote. I say let them come and give it a try for themselves as the data may be good for their PR campaign but not so good when hunters spend their time and money coming to the MARs zone and there is those big bucks behind every tree like they were led to believe !
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 3, 2015 18:43:25 GMT -5
Percentages mean very little when actual harvest numbers are ignored. Nobody ignores actual harvest numbers. When you see the data that shows at or near historical harvest numbers, as has been shown in Leelanau, what will your position be then? I'm not talking about percentages here. I'm talking the number of bucks on the ground. If the harvest number is fairly consistent along historical levels pre and post APR, how can that be considered a bad thing? Saying that it would be bad would make absolutely no sense. Who said they were going down? The surrounding counties will be the telltale data. The rest of the LP will say even more. But I'm sure you know that. |
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on Dec 3, 2015 20:04:15 GMT -5
Nobody ignores actual harvest numbers. When you see the data that shows at or near historical harvest numbers, as has been shown in Leelanau, what will your position be then? I'm not talking about percentages here. I'm talking the number of bucks on the ground. If the harvest number is fairly consistent along historical levels pre and post APR, how can that be considered a bad thing? Saying that it would be bad would make absolutely no sense. Who said they were going down? The surrounding counties will be the telltale data. The rest of the LP will say even more. But I'm sure you know that. Last I knew...you, Hartman, Ridge, and a few others stated they would be down at one time or another. Hartman went so far as to say that if harvest numbers returned to normal levels post APR that he would support them. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 5, 2015 7:17:55 GMT -5
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC.
This one speaks for itself;
"You have some valid points about the young hunters but you are a little off base. There are many 20 somethings out there that are pushing to let those 2.5 year olds go. Some even are striving for the fully mature route. Their learning curve on how to hunt older bucks is easily reduced by all the information at their finger tips.
I met a young man who is 24 years old and an avid bowhunter. I had heard he had quite a collection hanging on his wall. Little did I know what exactly that was. When I saw his impressive display of Michigan bucks, I began to pick his brain. This kid was impressive with his knowledge. He knew things at such a young age that took me up until a few years ago to learn.
In many of the younger hunters minds they think they can mimic the Outdoor Channel. When a bunch of them see it on tv and apply it to their own hunts and have early success, there is no looking back and the bar gets set high fast. With their youthful enthusiasm and the typical "I know it all" attitude many younger people have they begin to push their ideas onto other hunters."
I repeat.
"they begin to PUSH their ideas on others"
There in a nutshell you have the problems with this mapr movement.They have been pushed onto hunters, who were happy with their hunting.
|
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Dec 5, 2015 13:29:47 GMT -5
Please do not try to support your failed agenda with "check station data", the most easily manipulated data as proven by the Leelanau DMU. I am sure that this same manipulation is being used in the NW 12 County MAR's statistics. "Check station data" is great for biological information and determining the health of the resource but fails miserably at determining harvest numbers. This is undisputable. |
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Dec 5, 2015 16:37:32 GMT -5
Actual facts like your pie chart above? Propaganda is all it is. It shows 75% yearling harvest. I don't know anywhere where there is a 75% yearling harvest especially not in Michigan. The problem with pro-MAR's supporters is their philosophy of, "tell a lie, make it big, repeat it often and eventually your followers will see it as truth". Can you say "drink the Kool-aid"?
I have been totally immersed in wildlife management since my stint on the Michigan Deer Advisory Team from 2008-2010. I have attended over 75 deer, bear, wolf, moose and other MDNR meetings since that time, including NRC meetings. In fact I will be in St. Ignace next Wednesday for a public discussion on (what I believe to be) our current failing bear regulations. So, I am not an armchair game manager as you stated earlier. I know the manipulation and what I feel as corruption in the survey processes, the close relationship between the MDNR/NRC and many of the affluent groups and clubs and the influence the have on regulations. This MUST end. Although the NRC has the authority they lack the WILL to protect Michigan hunters from this selfish arrogant agenda. They ARE the problem. You know it, I know it and they know it.
The U.P. hunters choice, Beaver Island MAR's, Leelanau County MAR's and the NW 12 County MAR's are all in place because of manipulation and a deviation from the approved process, and if you did your homework you would know that. The NRC let the majority of Michigan's hunters down with their liberal, socialist, progressive attitude that they know what is better for the hunting public, they are wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on Dec 5, 2015 16:42:28 GMT -5
You can call it whatever you wish Curtis. Not too long ago, a few of you were professing that the new makeup of the NRC, with Farm Bureau ties, was in some way going to help you. Now, you say they're the problem. I don't feel either the NRC or the DNR are the problem....It's the antiquated concept of Traditional Deer Management. But, hey, that's just me.
|
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on Dec 5, 2015 16:50:56 GMT -5
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC. This one speaks for itself; "You have some valid points about the young hunters but you are a little off base. There are many 20 somethings out there that are pushing to let those 2.5 year olds go. Some even are striving for the fully mature route. Their learning curve on how to hunt older bucks is easily reduced by all the information at their finger tips. I met a young man who is 24 years old and an avid bowhunter. I had heard he had quite a collection hanging on his wall. Little did I know what exactly that was. When I saw his impressive display of Michigan bucks, I began to pick his brain. This kid was impressive with his knowledge. He knew things at such a young age that took me up until a few years ago to learn. In many of the younger hunters minds they think they can mimic the Outdoor Channel. When a bunch of them see it on tv and apply it to their own hunts and have early success, there is no looking back and the bar gets set high fast. With their youthful enthusiasm and the typical "I know it all" attitude many younger people have they begin to push their ideas onto other hunters." I repeat. "they begin to PUSH their ideas on others" There in a nutshell you have the problems with this mapr movement.They have been pushed onto hunters, who were happy with their hunting. Again, just something to consider, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It will serve you no purpose. There is no shortage of Facebook/forum comments and/or video outbursts that I'm sure you're not proud of as well. Shall the readers hold those comments, made by a few, as a representation of your cause too? |
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Dec 5, 2015 17:35:16 GMT -5
F-N-F,
You will never find anything from me that says former FB members on the NRC would help traditional deer management. In fact she was the only member who supported archery deer harvest in the U.P. at the NRC meeting in Monroe last spring. Why? Because of her connections with the Michigan Bow Hunters. I lost respect for her then.
The NRC are just people who are given their positions on the Commission as a political payback. Many are rewarded with high paid appointments after their dues are paid on the NRC. Research Charters, Madigan and Wheatlake. There are probably many more before my involvement.
The NRC are political animals. They have learned how to appease affluent groups with favors and may not have any real concern for wildlife management other than how they can curry favor from them. Go to the meetings and watch how they interact with each other, I do regularly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 5, 2015 17:53:28 GMT -5
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC. This one speaks for itself; "You have some valid points about the young hunters but you are a little off base. There are many 20 somethings out there that are pushing to let those 2.5 year olds go. Some even are striving for the fully mature route. Their learning curve on how to hunt older bucks is easily reduced by all the information at their finger tips. I met a young man who is 24 years old and an avid bowhunter. I had heard he had quite a collection hanging on his wall. Little did I know what exactly that was. When I saw his impressive display of Michigan bucks, I began to pick his brain. This kid was impressive with his knowledge. He knew things at such a young age that took me up until a few years ago to learn. In many of the younger hunters minds they think they can mimic the Outdoor Channel. When a bunch of them see it on tv and apply it to their own hunts and have early success, there is no looking back and the bar gets set high fast. With their youthful enthusiasm and the typical "I know it all" attitude many younger people have they begin to push their ideas onto other hunters." I repeat. "they begin to PUSH their ideas on others" There in a nutshell you have the problems with this mapr movement.They have been pushed onto hunters, who were happy with their hunting. Again, just something to consider, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It will serve you no purpose. There is no shortage of Facebook/forum comments and/or video outbursts that I'm sure you're not proud of as well. Shall the readers hold those comments, made by a few, as a representation of your cause too? This isn't about me, it's about claims made by those pushing maprs. If you want to start one about claims made by those opposing maprs, fell free to start another thread. Don't be putting words into my mouth about how proud I am about anything, you don't know me, at all. And don't worry about the readers, this is a website for the pro-choice group, remember? |
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on Dec 5, 2015 18:49:32 GMT -5
F-N-F,
You will never find anything from me that says former FB members on the NRC would help traditional deer management. In fact she was the only member who supported archery deer harvest in the U.P. at the NRC meeting in Monroe last spring. Why? Because of her connections with the Michigan Bow Hunters. I lost respect for her then.
The NRC are just people who are given their positions on the Commission as a political payback. Many are rewarded with high paid appointments after their dues are paid on the NRC. Research Charters, Madigan and Wheatlake. There are probably many more before my involvement.
The NRC are political animals. They have learned how to appease affluent groups with favors and may not have any real concern for wildlife management other than how they can curry favor from them. Go to the meetings and watch how they interact with each other, I do regularly.
Fair enough Curtis. I'm big enough to admit if I've made a mistake. I cannot find the comments/post that I was speaking of. I have edited the post to show accuracy and not be perceived as intentionally misleading. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 5, 2015 19:57:29 GMT -5
This isn't about me, it's about claims made by those pushing maprs. If you want to start one about claims made by those opposing maprs, fell free to start another thread. Don't be putting words into my mouth about how proud I am about anything, you don't know me, at all. And don't worry about the readers, this is a website for the pro-choice group, remember? Regardless of what side you're on, people deserve to know the truth. What this thread has been is your attempt at applying comments made by a few to represent the group as a whole. One of you went so far as to threaten some sort of ignorant and childish social media retaliation attempt as if it were some sort of special ops, mission impossible ridiculousness. It's irresponsible and hypocritical, to say the least. Can you not let your position stand on it's own merits without resorting to that? Once again, it it not your job to moderate my posts. If you want to post a comment pertaining to the thread you are free to do so. Call anyone irresponsible or a hypocrite again and bye bye, you lost another website to argue on. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Dec 6, 2015 20:44:14 GMT -5
Please do not try to support your failed agenda with "check station data", the most easily manipulated data as proven by the Leelanau DMU. I am sure that this same manipulation is being used in the NW 12 County MAR's statistics. "Check station data" is great for biological information and determining the health of the resource but fails miserably at determining harvest numbers. This is undisputable. Make sue to stick around long enough to see the annual harvest survey data over the next few years Curtis. I find it somewhat amusing that we keep hearing about this "manipulated" data from some of you. Yet, on the other hand, completely ignore statements made by any of you that are pawned off as fact, but are completely false. No correction whatsoever. No willingness to seek the real truth or actual facts. I'll rely on actual facts. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 8, 2015 12:07:27 GMT -5
Dr B also said this;
My opinion is that MAPRs automatically make the average hunter a better hunter.
And this;
APRs automatically make the average hunter into a more skilled hunter, because they begin doing the one thing that all consistent shooters of older deer do, they pass on young bucks.
Automatically?
Well opinions are like an anus, everyone has one, some just spew more toxic gas than others.
|
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on Dec 8, 2015 22:32:56 GMT -5
You don't consistently harvest big bucks when you spend your time shooting smaller ones. In many cases, larger bucks are not the first deer past your setup on any given day.
There was a gentleman that was dead set against APR's a few years ago that shared his story of the largest buck he ever harvested. He went on to tell the story behind it. He shot that buck because he had to pass a younger buck shortly before getting the opportunity to harvest the larger one.
Talk to any hunter who consistently harvests larger deer and they will all tell you that you don't get chances at larger bucks when you spend your time shooting smaller ones. It's just a fact of deer hunting.
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Dec 8, 2015 23:38:06 GMT -5
You don't consistently harvest big bucks when you spend your time shooting smaller ones. In many cases, larger bucks are not the first deer past your setup on any given day. There was a gentleman that was dead set against APR's a few years ago that shared his story of the largest buck he ever harvested. He went on to tell the story behind it. He shot that buck because he had to pass a younger buck shortly before getting the opportunity to harvest the larger one.
Talk to any hunter who consistently harvests larger deer and they will all tell you that you don't get chances at larger bucks when you spend your time shooting smaller ones. It's just a fact of deer hunting.  
You must be a little out of the loop on that person and his story . It seems he jumped on the MARs band wagon a little too soon by basing his opinion on that single hunt. Now that he has a little more experience hunting under the MARs regs he has come to the conclusion that they DO NOT WORK! He is now very vocal in his stance against the claim that if you are forced to pass the small ones(under MARs) a big one will be by shortly . I am hearing the same thing from many hunters around the NWLP that are disillusioned with what they thought the hunting was going to be like under MARs. All they see is those that have consistently taken bigger bucks( hunters that only live for deer hunting) still taking them and them selves being left out in the cold and being told they just need to do this or do that to become a better hunter or improve the land they hunt !
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 9, 2015 7:18:12 GMT -5
.This one is getting old. It's like when a parents tell their children if they don't go to bed on Christmas Eve Santa won't come.
It's a fairy tale that makes one dream of larger sugar plums...........
You don't consistently harvest big bucks when you spend your time shooting smaller ones. In many cases, larger bucks are not the first deer past your setup on any given day.
There was a gentleman that was dead set against APR's a few years ago that shared his story of the largest buck he ever harvested. He went on to tell the story behind it. He shot that buck because he had to pass a younger buck shortly before getting the opportunity to harvest the larger one.
Talk to any hunter who consistently harvests larger deer and they will all tell you that you don't get chances at larger bucks when you spend your time shooting smaller ones. It's just a fact of deer hunting.
Guys like this just don't get it. Not every hunter has the skills, ability, time, location, yada yad yada, to shoot larger bucks.
Let hunters progress like you did. Let them make their own mistakes. Let them make their own choice on their own.
This is not professional sports, or the military where everything is on the line.
It is DEER HUNTING.
Shoot a DEER, not a head.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 9, 2015 8:00:11 GMT -5
"SELFISHNESS: The rabid and strongly argued desire to keep regulations in place to allow you to shoot whatever buck you want, even though a majority of your fellow hunters would like to see those regulations change."
Majority of hunters that returned a survey mailed to them by the MI/DNR. Forgot to include that little bit into this definition, which is purely false. A supermajority was required for a reason. A reasonable person knows that.
The real numbers are on the hunter satisfaction surveys.
|
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Dec 9, 2015 21:07:37 GMT -5
Doehead, you lost this old man. What did you mean by "shoot a DEER not a head". I appreciate it that no one shoots my head as enough folks tell me have I too many holes in my head but I am not sure that is what you meant.
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Dec 10, 2015 1:44:35 GMT -5
Doehead, you lost this old man. What did you mean by "shoot a DEER not a head". I appreciate it that no one shoots my head as enough folks tell me have I too many holes in my head but I am not sure that is what you meant. I am sure Doehead will be on to answer for himself but I took it to mean just hunting for the head to go on the wall. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 10, 2015 5:59:48 GMT -5
Exactly.
All that these so called sportsman see is one part of a deers body.
To hang on the wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on Dec 11, 2015 16:24:00 GMT -5
Exactly. All that these so called sportsman see is one part of a deers body. To hang on the wall. There is so much more to the hunting experience than what goes on the wall, or into a freezer. Most, if not all, of those sportsmen you choose to attack would agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 11, 2015 18:08:32 GMT -5
Exactly. All that these so called sportsman see is one part of a deers body. To hang on the wall. There is so much more to the hunting experience than what goes on the wall, or into a freezer. Most, if not all, of those sportsmen you choose to attack would agree. I never said there wasn't. I said all they see is one part of a deers body. Some people see the whole deer and are satisfied taking one no matter what is on top. Nothing wrong with that. Legally or biologically. |
|
