Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

NRC Disaster

Jump to Latest
Status
Not open for further replies.
141 - 160 of 199 Posts
#142 ·
Dish7 said:
In our context of deer regs, yes plenty of opinions. Take baiting. One group says ban it based on disease concerns. Another says yes ban it but not because of disease, but because it changes natural movement or artificially inflates population, etc. Now take the groups opposing the bait ban. They can take those exact same points and turn them 180 to favor keeping bait.
Different opposing groups using the same talking points with their own spin. Both sides arguing the other is restricting them in some way.

Trigger alert:
The bait ban was used as an example in this post. This is not a pro or anti baitng post, lol.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about regulation not ripple effects and differing interpretations of their impact. The difference between enacting or rescinding a restriction is a very basic determination.

#nospinzonebeotch
 
#144 ·
swampbuck said:
I guess that would depend on how that majority is counted, and by whom.


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
Click to expand...
Fore instance, the last survey the DNR conducted on deer baiting showed a 71% approval rate for baiting with only 19% disproving. It's safe to say that those that are pro baiting are not a special interest group. Those disproving and pushing that agenda are the special interest group called anti-hunting hunters by many. Also, of the major Michigan deer hunting issues debated today, recent DNR surveys have shown that those in favor of a one-buck-limit, changing opening day of firearm deer season and opposing MAPRs are in the minority and represent special interest groups that go against the wants of the masses. I tend to align myself with the majority on these issues since my number one issue in Michigan's hunting and fishing sports are maintaining and increasing participation. Going against the majority typically results in decreased hunter/fishermen numbers, which we have been seeing a lot of these days here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Justin and sniper
Save
Like Like
#146 ·
mbrewer said:
I'm talking about regulation not ripple effects and differing interpretations of their impact. The difference between enacting or rescinding a restriction is a very basic determination.

#nospinzonebeotch
Click to expand...
We were talking about perceptions of special interests groups influencing regulation. Geez...even Swampy understood me, lol.

#Igotyourrippleeffect
 
#147 ·
Dish7 said:
In our context of deer regs, yes plenty of opinions. Take baiting. One group says ban it based on disease concerns. Another says yes ban it but not because of disease, but because it changes natural movement or artificially inflates population, etc. Now take the groups opposing the bait ban. They can take those exact same points and turn them 180 to favor keeping bait.
Different opposing groups using the same talking points with their own spin. Both sides arguing the other is restricting them in some way.

Trigger alert:
The bait ban was used as an example in this post. This is not a pro or anti baitng post, lol.
Click to expand...
In the above, two groups seek to ban or restrict, one does not. There is no "same" in "ban" and "not ban." "Concerns, changing deer movement," or "inflating population," are not restrictions.
 
#148 ·
Ranger Ray said:
In the above, two groups seek to ban or restrict, one does not. There is no "same" in "ban" and "not ban." "Concerns, changing deer movement," or "inflating population," are not restrictions.
Click to expand...
My point wasn't the restrictions in the example as much how easy it is for different groups to use the same reg or "restriction" to make their argument, pro or con. We see it all the time in these threads. For every opinion that believes the science supports a ban, there is one that believes the opposite is true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sniper
Save
Like Like
#149 · (Edited)
It's why the DNR is mandated to manage our natural resources by law and science, and not public opinion.

Special interests that seek "restrictions" on others in game management, is by law. That differs from one "thinking" they are restricted because of anothers actions. One is debatable, the other not.
 
#150 ·
Ranger Ray said:
That differs from one "thinking" they are restricted because of anthers actions. One is debatable, the other not.
Click to expand...
Freudian slip, lol.
No, I get what you are saying and agree. If game management was done in it's purist form. I doubt social science will ever be removed though. Paying costumers and all.
 
#151 ·
Ranger Ray said:
It's why the DNR is mandated to manage our natural resources by law and science, and not public opinion.

Special interests that seek "restrictions" on others in game management, is by law. That differs from one "thinking" they are restricted because of anothers actions. One is debatable, the other not.
Click to expand...
Not exactly, the DNR creates regulations, which are superceded by laws




Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
 
#152 ·
mbrewer said:
How about this?

Would it be fair to categorize a special interest by whether or not they seek to enact a restriction or rescind one, or is that too, opinion based?
Click to expand...
Whether a grouo is trying to enact a restriction or rescind one is irrelevant from my perspective. Either way they are trying to modify existing rules to make their way of hunting/fishing the world we all have to live in.

From my perspective what makes them special interest groups are hard line demands. Everyone has to shoot 3 or better on one side, no one can bait, no one can hunt, etc. Groups that are for more than just themselves and their way of thinking are open to compromise, and look for a win-win situation. That's my personal gauge.
 
#153 ·
Save
Like Like
#154 ·
swampbuck said:
Wow, where to even start.

I doubt the dual appointment of Mitterling and a complete Novice already being coached by QDMA was a coincidense, mission interupted.
Click to expand...
according to Mr. Heartwell “the concerned sportsman” is one of his “deer professors”.
 
Save
Like Like
#156 ·
Save
Like Like
#158 ·
QDMAMAN said:
according to Mr. Heartwell “the concerned sportsman” is one of his “deer professors”.
Click to expand...
What's even more entertaining than that was the fact Erik Schnelle and QDMA had already been playing Heartwell like a fiddle, making Jim Sweeney entirely irrelevant. Sweeney is just too narcissistic to realize it.
 
#160 ·
Ricky B said:
What's even more entertaining than that was the fact Erik Schnelle and QDMA had already been playing Heartwell like a fiddle, making Jim Sweeney entirely irrelevant. Sweeney is just too narcissistic to realize it.
Click to expand...
That fiddle is the reason for all of what is happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
 
141 - 160 of 199 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
About this Discussion
198 Replies
42 Participants
Last post:
ranger123
Michigan Sportsman Forum
posts
9.2M
members
104K
Since
2000
A forum community dedicated to hunting and fishing enthusiasts in the Michigan area. Come join the discussion about safety, gear, tackle, tips, tricks, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, reviews, reports, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Michigan Whitetail Deer Hunting Detroit River and Lake Erie MichiganWaterfowl.com Upland Game hunting, Dogs and dog training Saginaw Bay and its Tributaries