|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 30, 2015 6:43:55 GMT -5
Then you have some "Bucko" saying this in regards to the pro-choice crowd.
"Have at it, won't take long for the commissioners to read all 12 of your letters. :lol:"
Really. If there are only 12 people that oppose you, they must be some very powerful people because those commisioners sided with them on the last two proposals.
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Dec 30, 2015 8:55:59 GMT -5
Who said this? "If hunters have a choice of showing restraint or not, many (most) choose not to." An interesting statement, seeing this person has stated that a majority of hunters are in favor of mandatory restrictions on bucks. Which is it? A majority of hunters do not want to restrain themselves, or a majority want Maprs? It can't be both ways. Oh wait a person with a PHD can put spin on anything and the lemmings will believe it. He keeps their beat going on. LOL! That person also said that the reason people wanted MARs enjoy deer hunting so much is being able to sit there and watching the small bucks frolic and letting them go. That person is jim brauker and like any snake oil salesman he will tell you what ever it takes to sell what he is pushing at that moment  Had an interesting conversation with another hunter last night that reconfirmed the QDMers were lying to the camera on the latest MOOD segment about the NWLP and claiming they had not met ANYONE that doesn't like the MARs regs! |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 31, 2015 7:11:27 GMT -5
MOOD is for maprs, they just don't flaunt it. They don't want to alienate any of their viewers so it's passive on their part most of the time.
As far as the good Dr goes, he is a sad soul. He is a politition. Polititons lie, and like the police, don't face retribution for thier lies. He says he wants to improve our hunting experience. Why? It's not about us. It's bragging rights. It will be his ultimate deer hunting acomplishment, I BROUGHT MANDATORY ANTLER RESTICTIONS TO MICHIGAN!!!
His need for hunters having a good experience in the field is flawed.
From the Oxford Dictionaries;
Definition of hunt in English:
verb
1 [with object] Pursue and kill (a wild animal) for sport or food.
If all we care to do is watch deer, why buy a license? Sure, it's nice to watch deer frolicking in the breeze, sniffing rabbits and squirrels, jousting with their siblings and friends. That is not hunting, no license needed.
But it sounds good on paper.
|
|
|
|
Post by field-n-feathers on Jan 4, 2016 23:56:48 GMT -5
Then you have some "Bucko" saying this in regards to the pro-choice crowd. "Have at it, won't take long for the commissioners to read all 12 of your letters. :lol:" Really. If there are only 12 people that oppose you, they must be some very powerful people because those commisioners sided with them on the last two proposals. No offense intended.....However,those commissioners didn't side with anyone but their already established guidelines. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Jan 5, 2016 7:04:02 GMT -5
No offense taken. However, those commissioners were free to approve the proposals if they so wished. Those surveys were just a barometer of the hunting community.
The fact remains there is NO clear cut majority of those in favor of maprs, regardless what your leader says.
The surveys conducted so far to restrict hunters have been regional, non-random, stratified surveys. One even included saving fawns.... awwwwww.
You and I know there are a whole lot of hunters out there that do not want them.
They are waking up.
P.S. And your fearless leader doesn't think much of hunters in this state. He is constantly bashing us. As in "If left to their own devices hunters will destroy the resource they are hunting, and they will blaze away at any movement in the woods in quest to get a deer."
Not much love there.
|
|
|
|
Post by field-n-feathers on Jan 5, 2016 10:21:01 GMT -5
P.S. And your fearless leader doesn't think much of hunters in this state. He is constantly bashing us. As in "If left to their own devices hunters will destroy the resource they are hunting, and they will blaze away at any movement in the woods in quest to get a deer." Not much love there. Dale, just because I disagree with you on APR's is no reason to make statements like this. Nobody that supports APR's, and I mean nobody, is my "leader". |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Jan 5, 2016 14:34:22 GMT -5
I just call 'em the way I see 'em dude.
But I swear, for someone to say what he says about the hunters in Michigan....
The majority want MAPRS, they just have to be forced to do it otherwise they will shoot the first legal deer they see.
That makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jan 5, 2016 15:15:56 GMT -5
field-n-feathers, it was good reading your post. Unfortunately we all tend to get painted by the stripes that some of the people, in the groups that we support, wear. I vehemently support choice but on other sites there are pro choice folks that use language and personal attacks that I would never do.
I am sure that it is the same for you. We all need to police ourselves. When I get hot or over passionate about something, I know that it can be difficult for me to do.
Doehead, I love your motto at the bottom of the page. The double meaning is awesome!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Jan 7, 2016 6:22:56 GMT -5
This claim made by Dr Brauker is one that he uses all the time...
"I make stuff up, like the fact that you and your group proposed an MAPR that would affect every hunter in the state, restricting their ability to make a choice?"
That is an outright LIE!
If I recall correctly, Dr, brauker asked Dappleknocker what he could accept as a compromise instead of the lipmd's proposal. At no time was ANYTHING proposed.
Dr. Brauker proposed and is still avidly seeking WAY more restrictions than ever was discussed by anyone that is against what Dr Brauker is pursuing.
One thing for sure, he hit the nail on the head when he said he makes stuff up. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Jan 7, 2016 7:40:35 GMT -5
Dale, the fine Dr. will say anything that will put S.M.A.R.T. and myself in a bad light. My proposal was not representative of Michigan S.M.A.R.T. Hunters but an idea that was all mine. I was looking for a compromise to bring hunters together again as a brotherhood. The anti-traditional hunting group does not want a brotherhood but the mandatory suppressors of choice support division with every move they make. There are three "no-spike" DMU's in Michigan that work very well and are not as oppressive as three and four point mandatory restrictions. I am sorry for any confusion created by my proposal as regards Michigan S.M.A.R.T. Hunters. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Jan 7, 2016 16:43:28 GMT -5
I understand the no spike was a compromise. It never was proposed to anyone, yet the good dr. insists on bringing it up as fact.
Of course if nobody corrects him, it becomes fact.
Notice he gives minimal information that infers much fallacy. Who made a proposal? To whom? When?
It is not looking good for Maprs in this state anytime in the near future. Bad news is coming at the antler guys faster than they can convene and connive, Wait, If you think someones foaming at the mouth now,........
|
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Jan 7, 2016 17:47:34 GMT -5
Anyone want to refresh their memories on the "no-spike rule" suggestion made by myself as a compromise, it is in the December 2013 issue of Woods-N-Waters News. For what it is worth, with the emergence of CWD in Michigan, I no longer support the "no-spike rule". Anyone who supports ANY Mandatory restrictions to improve age structure in our resource is just NOT paying attention. Self imposed APR's are not practical either but impossible to police, we can only hope hunters are responsible to do what is right. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jan 8, 2016 20:14:57 GMT -5
daappleknocker, the guys on M-S are quoting a letter (email) from Sept. 2013 to prove that you intended to say that our entire group was proposing the no spke rule. I have not been able to find the Woods-N-Water article online. I am not sure that they even put them online. If you can help me find some evidence to counter the letter, I will put it up to refute the restriction group.
The pro-restriction is stating that it was a MAPR proposal made by our group that demonstrates that we are not against Mandatory Restrictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Jan 8, 2016 21:09:24 GMT -5
daappleknocker, the guys on M-S are quoting a letter (email) from Sept. 2013 to prove that you intended to say that our entire group was proposing the no spke rule. I have not been able to find the Woods-N-Water article online. I am not sure that they even put them online. If you can help me find some evidence to counter the letter, I will put it up to refute the restriction group. The pro-restriction is stating that it was a MAPR proposal made by our group that demonstrates that we are not against Mandatory Restrictions. Don't let jim brauker suck you in Ridge. He is the only one that believes the crap that he spews from his keyboard. Sure ,he has a couple of butt sniffers that follow him around but that is all they are and no one pays attention to them much either. He debates on a grade school level and for the most part people laugh at him behind his . Let him keep making himself look like the fool he is !  |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jan 8, 2016 21:48:42 GMT -5
O Kay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   |
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Jan 8, 2016 23:42:01 GMT -5
Yep those few butt sniffers are showing up over there now and making it clear that is all they are  |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Jan 9, 2016 8:34:29 GMT -5
The thread you reference should be titled ????
Let's change the subject is more like it, because that is what is going on there.
I'm surprised BnB is not getting called out by name, but he will just disappear and come back under another one. When your boss lets you surf the web at work, you can do stuff like that.
Just call him Tom.... Old Tom C,....OTCArcher.
We all know what SMART is, we are not stupid. No one came forth against the Limpd's and most who did found themselves banned from the pro MAPR websites. SMART was a place for them to go to converse with those with the same view. Did it take off? Depends. It depends if you look at numbers or effect.
Numbers say it's a pure failure.
But look at the effect. Why here it is almost three years later and Brauker still has a vendetta against SMART. Bucksnbows is still trying to defame SMART.
Fieldnfeathers is still coming here.
I'd say SMART has done just fine.
Remember, defending against MAPRS is like being the bullied kid on a playground. There are many more like that bullied kid than there are the bullies, they just sit in the background watching and waiting. Bullies do cry. They are at this moment. (and the beat goes on) LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Jan 9, 2016 8:51:08 GMT -5
Ridge, the letter that showed up on MS IS the letter to the NRC that was printed in W-N-W News. It was put in Tom Campbell's Magazine without my prior knowledge. I was surprised when I saw it in print. It was an actual letter, one of many, that I sent to the NRC, without a response I might add.
The idea of a "no-spike" regulation was something that I came up with after researching ALL of Michigan's MAR's regulations, past and present. It was an idea that I ran past many in our group and other pro-traditional hunting groups, especially in Clare and the Thumb. It was meant to be a compromise between two radically opposing philosophies. Our side bent, their side did not. That tells me much more about them, that they are selfish, unyielding and unable to compromise or reach a consensus on an important issue facing Michigan hunters. If they would have reached out for discussions things may be quite different today.
Michigan SMART Hunters have NO reason to be embarrassed by this proposal as it was intended to as a step forward in healing the rift that extreme MAR's have caused within our hunting ranks. Jim will manipulate any idea from our side to create the appearance that we are loony-toons. |
|
|
|
Post by field-n-feathers on Jan 9, 2016 10:44:54 GMT -5
Haven't been on there for quite some time. I'm not really sure why some of you are denying the claim. I remember the conversations about it here and over there.
One thing is for certain Dale....the "game", as you like to call it, is most definitely afoot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Jan 9, 2016 10:49:20 GMT -5
No proposal was made.
|
|
|
|
Post by bucksnbows on Jan 9, 2016 11:02:02 GMT -5
The thread you reference should be titled  ? Let's change the subject is more like it, because that is what is going on there. I'm surprised BnB is not getting called out by name, but he will just disappear and come back under another one. When your boss lets you surf the web at work, you can do stuff like that. Just call him Tom.... Old Tom C,....OTCArcher. We all know what SMART is, we are not stupid. No one came forth against the Limpd's and most who did found themselves banned from the pro MAPR websites. SMART was a place for them to go to converse with those with the same view. Did it take off? Depends. It depends if you look at numbers or effect. Numbers say it's a pure failure. But look at the effect. Why here it is almost three years later and Brauker still has a vendetta against SMART. Bucksnbows is still trying to defame SMART. Fieldnfeathers is still coming here. I'd say SMART has done just fine. Remember, defending against MAPRS is like being the bullied kid on a playground. There are many more like that bullied kid than there are the bullies, they just sit in the background watching and waiting. Bullies do cry. They are at this moment. (and the beat goes on) LOL Sorry Dale.... I'm not OTCArcher. I don't even go to that site. In fact this season and seasons to come in will hardly be hunting in Michigan. I'm onto new adventures in filming and producing hunts. Good luck Ps......Someone watching this site informed me of your accusations. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Jan 9, 2016 11:21:01 GMT -5
Don't worry Tom, I really could care less who he is, but his style of attack is very similar. He showed up here the same time you showed up on FB.
And you proved my point about such a small group having such an impact on such a large issue.
Welcome aboard and good luck in your new gig.
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Jan 9, 2016 11:24:34 GMT -5
People know the difference between making a proposal and proposing a compromise . Just jim brauker and his band of butt sniffers that are pretending they don't know the difference!
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Jan 9, 2016 11:28:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Jan 9, 2016 15:17:35 GMT -5
People know the difference between making a proposal and proposing a compromise . Just jim brauker and his band of butt sniffers that are pretending they don't know the difference!
I am shocked at your language. I should report you to the authorities. I find butt sniffers to be completely abhorrent and repugnant. Brown nosers would suffice. They are just seeing what is blowing in the wind. They have too much to lose this time. Right now their future looks bleak. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jan 9, 2016 18:36:05 GMT -5
Ridge, the letter that showed up on MS IS the letter to the NRC that was printed in W-N-W News. It was put in Tom Campbell's Magazine without my prior knowledge. I was surprised when I saw it in print. It was an actual letter, one of many, that I sent to the NRC, without a response I might add.
The idea of a "no-spike" regulation was something that I came up with after researching ALL of Michigan's MAR's regulations, past and present. It was an idea that I ran past many in our group and other pro-traditional hunting groups, especially in Clare and the Thumb. It was meant to be a compromise between two radically opposing philosophies. Our side bent, their side did not. That tells me much more about them, that they are selfish, unyielding and unable to compromise or reach a consensus on an important issue facing Michigan hunters. If they would have reached out for discussions things may be quite different today.
Michigan SMART Hunters have NO reason to be embarrassed by this proposal as it was intended to as a step forward in healing the rift that extreme MAR's have caused within our hunting ranks. Jim will manipulate any idea from our side to create the appearance that we are loony-toons. Thanks for your clarification. Your last paragraph says it all. My problem is that I continue to get sucked into Jim and his minion's game playing. They attack us because they have nothing to show that their claims are valid. They claim that a single factor, age, results in more older larger bucks as defined by the antlers. That change doesn't exist and to claim a single factor for what happens due to an aggregate of factors has no scientific basis. I am going to describe it this way: They are blowing up cigarette smoke in an attempt to fool people into believing that a forest fire exists which requires a response. In reality it is nothing but an illusion of hot air. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jan 25, 2016 22:49:08 GMT -5
QDMA supplied a new page of propaganda today as submitted by FL. It was the usual hype with a notable inclusion. They make the claim now that older bucks should be targeted specifically in CWD areas because if that does not happen hunters will give up hunting and CWD will spread. Huh? Older bucks are said to have the highest percentage of this disease but the question should be how do hunters prevent the older bucks from getting that disease. That has an easy answer. Shoot the younger bucks. That also slows down the spread of CWD through dispersal. The QDMA report does not seem to mention dispersal perhaps because it is not part of their campaign for massive restrictions. They say that cultivating or protecting a younger herd will slow or stop CWD. Apparently science goes out the window when mandated restrictions enter it. Another interesting suggestion made by this report is that the MDNR leadership is working hand in glove with the QDMA. That is hardly news but it is the first time that I remember seeing it openly admitted. That clearly shows that the DNR has not had a neutral stance on MAPRs. It is long overdue that an independent group aside from the DNR, MSU, or the QDMA handle any survey or polling work. |
|
|
|
Post by field-n-feathers on Jan 26, 2016 1:39:37 GMT -5
field-n-feathers, it was good reading your post. Thanks Ridge. I'd post more if I wasn't banned. Never attacked you or anyone on here while I was here. Even worse,my posts were edited to show things that I never wrote. I try to just stay out of the debates when I can. Rest assured though, I will defend myself if/when needed....and there's not a damn thing Dale could do to stop it. Take care Ridge. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jan 26, 2016 16:46:59 GMT -5
Just so you know, I did not edit your posts. If I do edit someone's post it is only for spelling and on a rare instance punctuation. I never change the content. I wish you well fnf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Jan 26, 2016 20:46:48 GMT -5
field-n-feathers, it was good reading your post. Thanks Ridge. I'd post more if I wasn't banned. Never attacked you or anyone on here while I was here. Even worse,my posts were edited to show things that I never wrote. I try to just stay out of the debates when I can. Rest assured though, I will defend myself if/when needed....and there's not a damn thing Dale could do to stop it. Take care Ridge. You started your bullshit a long time ago with me buddy,so don't play Mr innocent. You are only here to stir up trouble. You got what you deserve. |
|
Had an interesting conversation with another hunter last night that reconfirmed the QDMers were lying to the camera on the latest MOOD segment about the NWLP and claiming they had not met ANYONE that doesn't like the MARs regs! 
?