bnb
restricted
Posts: 58 
|
Post by bnb on Aug 6, 2016 8:53:14 GMT -5
You are a good fisherman, find it yourself it is out there. It's not that important to me. I guess we are done |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 6, 2016 9:15:52 GMT -5
You are a good fisherman, find it yourself it is out there. It's not that important to me. I guess we are done LOL!!! I thought so. |
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 6, 2016 9:33:26 GMT -5
It's not that important to me. I guess we are done LOL!!! I thought so. I looked for it yesterday for a brief moment. I found a lot of news articles talking about it but did not see a copy of the proposal from a sponsoring group or a copy of the survey questions. Yes I know it exists. I hate fishing. I had better things to do yesterday, today and tomorrow than search for something that in reality is irrelevant to present time. The LPDMI proposals did not reach the 66% They are no longer and issue. The nw12 passed and will be surveyed again. Everything else is water under the bridge at this point. I'm off to the gym then the ice rink.....hockey season is just around the corner. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 6, 2016 9:42:36 GMT -5
So you were arguing that the proposal language did not include fawn survival and hunter recruitment/retention and never even read the proposal?
Then i have to prove myself right.
Okay.
|
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 6, 2016 15:42:31 GMT -5
So you were arguing that the proposal language did not include fawn survival and hunter recruitment/retention and never even read the proposal? Then i have to prove myself right. Okay. Ok now we're getting somewhere. Why didn't you just say the extra wording in the nw12 survey? The topic was about ridges claims that Jim and Tony said aprs would retain hunters and increase buck harvest. Which he later posted he meant jim said recently more mature bucks. So let me focus on that first. Jim is right. More mature....not mature. A 2.5 is more mature than a 1.5.....I think we can get that. Less yearling killed they become more mature. Ok so let's revisit ridges comment about them stating it would retain hunters. They never said they would but they did use Leelanau as an example of how they were the only dmu in the area to retain hunters. At the time it was a pretty good example to use in comparison. Now after 3 years of data we can look at the larger area and if the link in post 1 is actually accurate imo I would say Leelanau was an anomaly in retaining hunters. Yet without looking I will say that aprs have done what we actually know what they are intended to do. As for the wording in the nw12 proposal. I've stated that the perceived outcomes mentioned in the wording have little or nothing to do with APR's since the first time I heard about them being included....hence the confusion about why wording related to such outcomes would be included in a survey proposing APR's? :confused: None of the previous surveys included the wording in question, so it certainly makes one wonder, who decided to scrap the existing format that had been used 9 times previously and come up with new wording that gives the impression that those outcomes are impacted by APR's? It's a survey specifically about APR's and the wording alludes to deer/car accidents being reduced or maintained at acceptable levels, crop damage remaining at acceptable levels and maintaining fawn health. The previous paragraph stated that the sponsoring organization has proposed modifications in the regulations and then defines the proposed areas. Then the wording in question states that the sponsoring organization intends for regulations in the proposed area to accomplish certain goals, followed by the survey question which asks whether you support those proposed regulations. If the author of that wording did not mean to imply that the outcomes stated in regards to car/deer accidents, crop damage or fawn health were related to the proposed regulation, then why were they included at all? The only person who can factually answer that question is the individual(s) who made the decision to alter the previous format and change the wording. It's pretty important to hear from that person, any one else trying to answer is simply speculating. |
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 6, 2016 15:45:55 GMT -5
Now specify what was wrong with the LPDMI proposals.
|
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 6, 2016 15:58:45 GMT -5
And lets be real. Do you think hunters are that stupid to think aprs will reduce car deer accidents.
|
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Aug 6, 2016 17:03:25 GMT -5
I don't need percentages. I'll take numbers. I have been asking Dr. Jim to use numbers for years. He always states that percentages are more accurate and reflective of the truth. You are right as I much prefer having real numbers to look at along side of the percentages! I'd like to touch on this comment...... Check station data is likely biased towards older bucks. It was also likely biased well before APR's were instituted. You can remove the supplemental check station data if you wish. In the end, even with that data removed, you get a fair assessment of the increased age structure post APR....which is significant. Back to real numbers.... Real numbers, those used in check station data, are used to calculate the age percentage breakdown of those deer that were checked. You need real numbers to calculate this. So, yes, you already have your real numbers. They're a pre-requisite to calculate the percentages. Additionally, you simply cannot take a large majority of yearling bucks off of the table in regards to harvest, and not fully expect the age structure to increase. Seeing real numbers used to calculate percentages in the check station data isn't going to change that. ETA: Not anywhere in my above post did I state the Harvest Survey is worthless. This was done by another proceeding poster in an attempt to derail the thread, add nothing of substance, and obfuscate the meaning of my post. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 6, 2016 19:06:43 GMT -5
So you were arguing that the proposal language did not include fawn survival and hunter recruitment/retention and never even read the proposal? Then i have to prove myself right. Okay. Ok now we're getting somewhere. Why didn't you just say the extra wording in the nw12 survey? The topic was about ridges claims that Jim and Tony said aprs would retain hunters and increase buck harvest. Which he later posted he meant jim said recently more mature bucks. So let me focus on that first. Jim is right. More mature....not mature. A 2.5 is more mature than a 1.5.....I think we can get that. Less yearling killed they become more mature. Ok so let's revisit ridges comment about them stating it would retain hunters. They never said they would but they did use Leelanau as an example of how they were the only dmu in the area to retain hunters. At the time it was a pretty good example to use in comparison. Now after 3 years of data we can look at the larger area and if the link in post 1 is actually accurate imo I would say Leelanau was an anomaly in retaining hunters. Yet without looking I will say that aprs have done what we actually know what they are intended to do. As for the wording in the nw12 proposal. I've stated that the perceived outcomes mentioned in the wording have little or nothing to do with APR's since the first time I heard about them being included....hence the confusion about why wording related to such outcomes would be included in a survey proposing APR's? :confused: None of the previous surveys included the wording in question, so it certainly makes one wonder, who decided to scrap the existing format that had been used 9 times previously and come up with new wording that gives the impression that those outcomes are impacted by APR's? It's a survey specifically about APR's and the wording alludes to deer/car accidents being reduced or maintained at acceptable levels, crop damage remaining at acceptable levels and maintaining fawn health. The previous paragraph stated that the sponsoring organization has proposed modifications in the regulations and then defines the proposed areas. Then the wording in question states that the sponsoring organization intends for regulations in the proposed area to accomplish certain goals, followed by the survey question which asks whether you support those proposed regulations. If the author of that wording did not mean to imply that the outcomes stated in regards to car/deer accidents, crop damage or fawn health were related to the proposed regulation, then why were they included at all? The only person who can factually answer that question is the individual(s) who made the decision to alter the previous format and change the wording. It's pretty important to hear from that person, any one else trying to answer is simply speculating. All I can say is I was included in the people that had a say in the final wording on the Lipm surveys and I wasn't in the NW 12. Now we are getting somewhere. I totally understand why the wording was changed. . |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 6, 2016 19:08:20 GMT -5
And lets be real. Do you think hunters are that stupid to think aprs will reduce car deer accidents. The DNR and the anti-choice crowd must, they included it in the NW12 survey. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 6, 2016 19:12:24 GMT -5
I have been asking Dr. Jim to use numbers for years. He always states that percentages are more accurate and reflective of the truth. You are right as I much prefer having real numbers to look at along side of the percentages! I'd like to touch on this comment...... Check station data is likely biased towards older bucks. It was also likely biased well before APR's were instituted. You can remove the supplemental check station data if you wish. In the end, even with that data removed, you get a fair assessment of the increased age structure post APR....which is significant. Back to real numbers.... Real numbers, those used in check station data, are used to calculate the age percentage breakdown of those deer that were checked. You need real numbers to calculate this. So, yes, you already have your real numbers. They're a pre-requisite to calculate the percentages. Additionally, you simply cannot take a large majority of yearling bucks off of the table in regards to harvest, and not fully expect the age structure to increase. Seeing real numbers used to calculate percentages in the check station data isn't going to change that. So you are debating for no reason. We agree the harvest survey is useless. |
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Aug 7, 2016 10:03:03 GMT -5
And lets be real. Do you think hunters are that stupid to think aprs will reduce car deer accidents. The DNR and the anti-choice crowd must, they included it in the NW12 survey. Doehead replied before I had the chance  So why does the QDMA(the sponsoring organization for the NWLP12) think MARs will decrease car deer accidents ? Many of the claims made about MARs were made directly from the QDMA spokesperson on MOOD and have nothing to do with jim or tony or the MS forum. The QDMA also said on MOOD that MARs would bring in large numbers of out of state hunters and bring back all the hunters that left the area, in turn saving all the mom and pop stores in the area. The reality is MARs can't even bring all those hunters complaining about how deer hunting sucks right here in Michigan to drive a few miles north to the area ! That tells me that not only are MARs a failure but those complaining are just complainers and nothing more! Then in the most recent MOOD coverage of the QDMA check station (QDMA big buck night) their spokesperson looked into the camera and outright lied to every one by saying he has never met any one that doesn't love the new MARs. |
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Aug 7, 2016 10:17:00 GMT -5
So how you going to do that when the DNR turned the check station duties over to the QDMA in the NWLP and then hid that data by entering those deer as being checked at a legitimate DNR check station in Gaylord ?
|
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 7, 2016 11:52:35 GMT -5
The DNR and the anti-choice crowd must, they included it in the NW12 survey. Doehead replied before I had the chance So why does the QDMA(the sponsoring organization for the NWLP12) think MARs will decrease car deer accidents ? Many of the claims made about MARs were made directly from the QDMA spokesperson on MOOD and have nothing to do with jim or tony or the MS forum. The QDMA also said on MOOD that MARs would bring in large numbers of out of state hunters and bring back all the hunters that left the area, in turn saving all the mom and pop stores in the area. The reality is MARs can't even bring all those hunters complaining about how deer hunting sucks right here in Michigan to drive a few miles north to the area ! That tells me that not only are MARs a failure but those complaining are just complainers and nothing more! Then in the most recent MOOD coverage of the QDMA check station (QDMA big buck night) their spokesperson looked into the camera and outright lied to every one by saying he has never met any one that doesn't love the new MARs. I don't know why they say those things. I know aprs do not do anything beyond protect a portion of the yearling buck cohort. They may have side benefits but I personally would not promote them to sell aprs. The bottom line is..... If you are looking to create a regulation that will have a more evident impact on allowing more bucks to reach older age classes aprs are the way to go. There are a lot of things said about deer management that just are not accurate. I could spend my entire day correcting hunters online with their inaccurate comments of basic herd dynamics and management. Including those who are like minded. For example on the let em grow page guys use body characteristics to age deer. Problem is those body characteristics that we are taught to look for are for bucks during the pre rut stages. So there are some older bucks who get aged at 2.5 when they are most likely 3.5 or older looking at summer pics. Or the genetic argument. Or the constant shoot a doe if you want meat. Etc. I didn't agree with the wording. I didn't agree with the qdma big buck night. Its called sugar coating. Not much different than some of the ridiculous claims made by some of you. No matter what the increase for support for these types of regulations is growing and fast. I seriously doubt any of the wording made any difference in passing or failing them. I'm positive those who returned the apr surveys knew exactly what they were "voting " for or against. I think we are making a mountain out of a mole hill. |
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Aug 7, 2016 15:28:44 GMT -5
I think we are making a mountain out of a mole hill. It's all been circular arguments, with an occasional strawman or conspiracy theory thrown in, from the get go. Nothing new, really. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 7, 2016 18:18:13 GMT -5
"If you are looking to create a regulation that will have a more evident impact on allowing more bucks to reach older age classes aprs are the way to go."
You see, the people that frequent this website are against any unnecessary regulations.
That is all.
|
|
|
|
Post by galena on Aug 7, 2016 19:59:55 GMT -5
I normally kill a pair of 115 inch plus bucks pretty much every year. No MAPR needed, just a little self control, writing a big ol check to buy producing $$ farmground in central Michibraska and then turning it into a whitetail paradise helped a bunch in that too. If I had a bit more self control I am sure I could do a bit better in the inches department, but I need fishing time in the fall too. Regulating others to perhaps get what you want by removing their opportunity is simply MORALLY WRONG in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Aug 7, 2016 20:39:25 GMT -5
And this is what I don't think the QDMers understand. Many hunters don't care to spend every min of their time when it is deer season in pursuit of a big buck or to challenge them selves more each year. Many hunters have other things that they spend time doing that time of the year including time with the kids and wife. If deer hunting is that serious for someone fine but don't push that seriousness onto every one else ! I know some big buck killers that forsake everything during deer season. They can also become very moody and unhappy at that time because they take it so seriously !
|
|
|
|
Post by galena on Aug 7, 2016 21:51:44 GMT -5
And this is what I don't think the QDMers understand. Many hunters don't care to spend every min of their time when it is deer season in pursuit of a big buck or to challenge them selves more each year. Many hunters have other things that they spend time doing that time of the year including time with the kids and wife. If deer hunting is that serious for someone fine but don't push that seriousness onto every one else ! I know some big buck killers that forsake everything during deer season. They can also become very moody and unhappy at that time because they take it so seriously ! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHMEN I used to hang around with a few grumpy bears like that. Glad I never caught the full blown illness. I did get close enough to get the sniffles, but never did get the itching burning rash, feverish sweats, or the bad dreams that kept me up at night. THANK GOD FOR THAT...it all looked like a pretty miserable "condition" to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 9, 2016 21:15:47 GMT -5
I normally kill a pair of 115 inch plus bucks pretty much every year. No MAPR needed, just a little self control, writing a big ol check to buy producing $$ farmground in central Michibraska and then turning it into a whitetail paradise helped a bunch in that too. If I had a bit more self control I am sure I could do a bit better in the inches department, but I need fishing time in the fall too. Regulating others to perhaps get what you want by removing their opportunity is simply MORALLY WRONG in my book. This is where you and I disagree. I could care less about inches. I like a bigger bodied deer, but what is on top of it's head make no difference to me. To tell you the truth, my mom likes the small ones. I take care of my mom. But go for what ever you want, it's out there. |
|
|
|
Post by galena on Aug 9, 2016 21:32:45 GMT -5
I normally kill a pair of 115 inch plus bucks pretty much every year. No MAPR needed, just a little self control, writing a big ol check to buy producing $$ farmground in central Michibraska and then turning it into a whitetail paradise helped a bunch in that too. If I had a bit more self control I am sure I could do a bit better in the inches department, but I need fishing time in the fall too. Regulating others to perhaps get what you want by removing their opportunity is simply MORALLY WRONG in my book. This is where you and I disagree. I could care less about inches. I like a bigger bodied deer, but what is on top of it's head make no difference to me. To tell you the truth, my mom likes the small ones. I take care of my mom. But go for what ever you want, it's out there. I choose to normally shoot a 2.5 yr+ old buck, just so happens they normally average about 110++ inches here in the cornbelt. It's not like 115 inches is my magic auto kill measurement or something. I just take the 2.5+ critters as they come. My Wife or a Niece/Nephew or myself do kill every spike we see too. Which is about one per decade at most. Most bucks have a nice 6 or 8 point basket rack at 1.5 here in the Monsanto plains, so why not? My Wife likes the occasional tender vittles and it gives her some experience in freak out control when it comes to shooting something larger/older. WIN/WIN in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Aug 10, 2016 5:47:22 GMT -5
Doehead and galena I support both of your harvest options. The truth is it is about hunter "CHOICE", or it was once anyway. I have practiced voluntary APR's since 1989 but do not impose them on other hunters on my property. I love seeing others harvest what they want, great memories and that is what it should be. |
|
|
|
Post by galena on Aug 10, 2016 6:42:14 GMT -5
Doehead and galena I support both of your harvest options. The truth is it is about hunter "CHOICE", or it was once anyway. I have practiced voluntary APR's since 1989 but do not impose them on other hunters on my property. I love seeing others harvest what they want, great memories and that is what it should be. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHMENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN  |
|
So why does the QDMA(the sponsoring organization for the NWLP12) think MARs will decrease car deer accidents ? Many of the claims made about MARs were made directly from the QDMA spokesperson on MOOD and have nothing to do with jim or tony or the MS forum. The QDMA also said on MOOD that MARs would bring in large numbers of out of state hunters and bring back all the hunters that left the area, in turn saving all the mom and pop stores in the area. The reality is MARs can't even bring all those hunters complaining about how deer hunting sucks right here in Michigan to drive a few miles north to the area ! That tells me that not only are MARs a failure but those complaining are just complainers and nothing more! Then in the most recent MOOD coverage of the QDMA check station (QDMA big buck night) their spokesperson looked into the camera and outright lied to every one by saying he has never met any one that doesn't love the new MARs. 
