# Coming To A Social Game Management Program Near You



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Who would have ever guessed. 

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loc...cle_da428798-a7a5-11e2-bfe9-0019bb2963f4.html


----------



## J-Lee (Jul 11, 2000)

I am sure this has already started here, the antis have not been as effective as they had hoped, in many ways. They will try to work from inside out, political office, state jobs( DNR) etc. That is why it is so important for sportsmen and women to stick together, we are a minority. We tend to bicker about little things, while losing track of the big picture. The antis will not go away, they are finding different ways to get what they want.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/wolf_hunt_michigan_voter_right.html


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

I had to do some business at the Secretary of State in Niles, Michigan a couple months ago...

There was a guy standing outside when I left asking me to sign a petition regarding the fact people were pushing to hunt Wolves in the U.P.

He stated "the DNR didn't want it, because they were endangered and any hunting would be detrimental to any efforts of rebuilding their populations here in Michigan."

Upon hearing this I quickly stated I believed that was incorrect as I had read from credible sources that biologists were in fact not against it as the population was quite healthy and in fact some hunting would be a good thing.

The guy looked at me with a blank look on his face and said "how could hunting be a good thing", I truly believe he had no idea about the actual benefits of hunting. Upon hearing me say this to him, 2 people got upset as they had signed the petition under false information and had heard my conversation with him. They obviously could tell once I started to state the actual facts, who was likely telling the truth and who wasn't...

What saddens me is, people blindly follow this kind of stuff without even researching the facts.

Welcome to the age of the internet...


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Pretty plain to see that if societal trends continue, within a generation, the right (or the privilege as some point out) to hunt or fish will be in serious jeopardy.


----------



## broncbuster2 (Apr 15, 2000)

Perhaps those bird watchers and tree huggers should pay equal amounts to the cost of a licenses to use those resources..


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

What do you have against democracy? The Conservation Congress is publicly elected and consists of five representatives from each county, which is a pretty large gift to the rural counties. Why shouldn't the citizens of Wisconsin be able to freely elect people to represent them? This move to mandate hunting and trapping in all of Wisconsin's State Parks looks like the sort of stupid, empty symbolic gesture that wastes everyones time and stirs up a hornets nest while important issues are ignored. If the WiDNR has seen fit to prohibit hunting and trapping in some of its parks I'll bet there is good reason for it. Not all of Michigan's parks are suitable for those uses, why should Wisconsin be any different?

The attacks on elected bodies, attacks on the validity of opinions of those who live outside of or don't frequent an area in Michigan and the dismissal of citizens from other states really makes me wonder what sort of "freedom" you support. Since toto is fond of pointing out that the source of funding can tell us a lot about a group and its "undue influence" I'll ask again as I've been asking for the last eight months; who funds the GLFSA? I said once before that I assumed it was just a few of you throwing a couple bucks in the kitty to pay for your website but I'm not so sure anymore. Fearing public elections is a pretty extreme stand and I really have to wonder what you guys are all about under the surface.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> What do you have against democracy? The Conservation Congress is publicly elected and consists of five representatives from each county, which is a pretty large gift to the rural counties. Why shouldn't the citizens of Wisconsin be able to freely elect people to represent them? This move to mandate hunting and trapping in all of Wisconsin's State Parks looks like the sort of stupid, empty symbolic gesture that wastes everyones time and stirs up a hornets nest while important issues are ignored. If the WiDNR has seen fit to prohibit hunting and trapping in some of its parks I'll bet there is good reason for it. Not all of Michigan's parks are suitable for those uses, why should Wisconsin be any different?
> 
> The attacks on elected bodies, attacks on the validity of opinions of those who live outside of or don't frequent an area in Michigan and the dismissal of citizens from other states really makes me wonder what sort of "freedom" you support. Since toto is fond of pointing out that the source of funding can tell us a lot about a group and its "undue influence" I'll ask again as I've been asking for the last eight months; who funds the GLFSA? I said once before that I assumed it was just a few of you throwing a couple bucks in the kitty to pay for your website but I'm not so sure anymore. Fearing public elections is a pretty extreme stand and I really have to wonder what you guys are all about under the surface.


Appears these guys get it:



MUCC said:


> Out-of-State Anti's are Targeting Your Legislators!
> Dear Conservationist,
> We have one chance to defend the right to hunt, fish and trap from out-of-state anti-hunters for good.
> Scientific Wildlife Management legislation will make sure that game management decisions are *made by sound science*, not ballot-box biology. If we don't take advantage of this opportunity now, they'll come back to our state again and again to attack your rights to hunt, fish and trap, one by one.
> ...


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Ranger Ray said:


> Appears these guys get it:


 
If you take special interest out of the choice making, who will be left to volunteer for the conservation efforts?:evil:


----------



## k9wernet (Oct 15, 2007)

KZoo fisher - there are some issues that due to their complexity or technical nature, simply should not be decided by a public vote. Call it anti-democratic, I'll call it pro-representative republic. I believe a vast majority of natural resource policy falls into that category.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

k9wernet said:


> KZoo fisher - there are some issues that due to their complexity or technical nature, simply should not be decided by a public vote. Call it anti-democratic, I'll call it pro-representative republic. I believe a vast majority of natural resource policy falls into that category.


 It does fall into that category and it isn't decided by a public vote. Natural resource policy should not be decided by the governor either. After Granholm gave herself the power to appoint the DNR director as well as the NRC commissioners that is essentially where the decisions will be made. I don't want the next Granholm deciding that those cute woodcock with their upside down brains are just too tired to be hunted after migrating. Or that ATV's are just too darn loud so we need to set aside a few million acres for hikers to enjoy the quiet. Our elected representatives make some of the decisions as a check on the executives power, that's good. The public has elections as a check on the power of the legislature, that's good. Giving all the power to the executive branch is not good.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Ray,
A few months ago you were dead set against unelected bureaucrats making DNR regulations without the checks and balances of elections, now you're all for it. Why the flip flop? Could it be that when you thought democracy was in you favor you were for it and now that you think the election might not go your way you want to stop it? You have attacked what you call my "ideology" in the past but at least I'm consistent, fight for democracy and uphold the laws of the land. You seem to support whatever methods will achieve the outcome you want and keep the power in your hands, including using the legislature one day and taking the same power away from it the next. All so you can get your way right now instead of taking the long view of how this is going to affect resource management for future generations. Nice.


----------



## k9wernet (Oct 15, 2007)

kzoofisher said:


> I don't want the next Granholm deciding ...


Because of the term spacing of NRC members, no one governor can take control of that board.

I believe there is a mandate that both political parties be represented on it too, though I don't remember where I heard that.

Further, the NRC now has a legislative mandate to manage fish and game using sound science AND another one to preserve and protect the right to hunt fish and trap. Any decisions which run counter to these mandates could be challenged in court.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> Ray,
> A few months ago you were dead set against unelected bureaucrats making DNR regulations without the checks and balances of elections, now you're all for it. Why the flip flop? Could it be that when you thought democracy was in you favor you were for it and now that you think the election might not go your way you want to stop it? You have attacked what you call my "ideology" in the past but at least I'm consistent, fight for democracy and uphold the laws of the land. You seem to support whatever methods will achieve the outcome you want and keep the power in your hands, including using the legislature one day and taking the same power away from it the next. All so you can get your way right now instead of taking the long view of how this is going to affect resource management for future generations. Nice.


Oh befuddler of befuddlement. Its been apparent from the beginning that I am*for game management decisions that are made by sound science, not ballot-box biology. The power in the hands of the biologists.*


My way is letting the biologists decide by "sound science" has been from the beginning. Yet your conclusion, I want it my way. There are facts, then there is Kzoo's interpretation of those facts. 

What was this thread about again? OH Yeah!!! The anti's getting on game management committees because of "social management." Thought for a minute it was about what Ray said in his past posts, taken out of context to show he may be conflicted. Is that your sole purpose on here? Trying to take out of context what people posted in the past to befuddle the argument at hand? Usually something one does when they can't defend their position on topic at hand. So appears MUCC agrees with me not you. So address that fact and defend your position.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Last year Michigan Hunters added nearly 4 billion dollars to the states economy this does not include the billions of dollars that fishermen and trappers have added. Some of this money goes back into fish, game, waterfowl, and non game animal management. How much money did Peta and HSUS contribute???? Let the DNR decide not the ballot box!!!!! I paid my dues and if the ballot box decides how I have to hunt I will change my methods.but I won't let them idiots tell me what I have to do.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Apparently Kzoo you dont understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. We have no problem with a committee in WI or the Cold Water Citizens Committee in MI. We commend the MDNR from reaching out to the public for their input. What we object to is the idea that these committees become the rule makers or policy makers. 

In the case of MI, a minority made up of representatives of Anglers of the Au Sable, the Federation of Fly Fishers, Huron Pines advocates, the PM Watershed and others representing fly fishermen on the Citizens Cold Water Committee not only penned FO 2013 but voted unanimously for rules on public waters that benefitted only them with no regard to the other 98% of fishermen. 

As a result more than 500,000 trout fishermen women and children have been denied from fishing these premium waters the way they choose. Of course you and your friends deny any discrimination and claim anyone can fish these waters, as long as they do it the way you choose. 

Over and over you attack us personally or our organization GLFSA like you have in your last post in an effort to befuddle the discussion so you wont have to answer the real issue that you and your friends have manipulated the system for selfish reasons.



kzoofisher said:


> .......Since toto is fond of pointing out that the source of funding can tell us a lot about a group and its "undue influence" I'll ask again as I've been asking for the last eight months; who funds the GLFSA? I said once before that I assumed it was just a few of you throwing a couple bucks in the kitty to pay for your website but I'm not so sure anymore. Fearing public elections is a pretty extreme stand and I really have to wonder what you guys are all about under the surface.


So what does this have to do with the issue? Nothing! But it is ironic when you consider what you said in another thread.



kzoofisher said:


> I said earlier in this thread that I think the low % argument is a bad one (does anyone besides anonymous message board posters make this argument?)......


When I responded with this post.


Splitshot said:


> I am not ashamed to let people know who I am Kzoo, are you? My name is Ray Danders. I live at 7373 Little Manistee River Dr, Irons, MI 49644. Since you made the point, does anyone besides anonymous message board antagonists and posers make any cogent arguments that justify special fly privileges?





kzoofisher said:


> Whoa, settle down there Ray. I'm nobody special so my name is unimportant and staying anonymous on a message board that has characters like this one does is my preference. I've never tried to get on a DNR committee, I don't claim to have any inside knowledge and I have no illusions of grandeur. Being a nobody is fine with me......


I dont argue with what you say about yourself kzoo, I actually agree with your description of yourself. It is ironic that you twist the issue that because we dont supply you with information, somehow it supports your insinuation that we are undemocratic and fear public elections.	

One minute you claim you are not a biologist and the next making some argument that if Global Warming continues and the biologists are not prepared somehow our fisheries may crash and may not recover. That is just one of the many Chicken Little theories you have presented and in my opinion to change the narrative so you and your friends who currently enjoy an unfair advantage on some of our best trout rivers wont have to answer the question of why you feel you should be entitled to special consideration. 

We also realize that if SB 288 and 289 are passed, your friends will likely have to give up those special privileges.

We support the management of our natural resources by sound biological principles, and not as MUCC has described as ballot box biology. We also support management rules that treat all citizens fairly and equally and the fact that we are growing supports our contention that our message is being heard and understood.

We dont believe that opening state parks to hunting and trapping is a stupid, empty symbolic gesture that wastes everyones time. We are sportsmen and we support hunting and trapping in all of our state parks unless of course they pose a real safety issues and making that statement makes me wonder if you have a good reason to hide your identity. I know one of the members of the Cold Water Committee who supports special privileges for your friends is a member of the Sierra Club who recently came out publically against trapping.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

I understand the difference quite well and if you read my posts a little more carefully you&#8217;ll find that you are being a little too clever for your own good. The Republic is not under attack in this thread, just Democracy within the Republic. You are the ones who have said that people should be barred from participation on DNR committees for their beliefs. You are the ones complaining about elected representatives who do not meet your standards. You are the ones who have dismissed the opinions of posters because of their primary address. You talk a good game about being for all the people but you actions say otherwise.



> In the case of MI, a minority made up of representatives of Anglers of the Au Sable, the Federation of Fly Fishers, *Huron Pines advocates*, the PM Watershed and others representing fly fishermen on the Citizens Cold Water Committee not only penned FO 2013 but voted unanimously for rules on public waters that benefitted only them with no regard to the other 98% of fishermen....One minute you claim you are not a biologist *and the next making some argument that if &#8220;Global Warming&#8221; continues and the biologists are not prepared somehow our fisheries may crash and may not recover.*


 The bold portions above are completely unverifiable, untrue or both. Your habit of throwing in false &#8220;facts&#8221; to bolster your argument is one of the reasons I doubt just about everything you say. In the first one you are clearly trying to throw Huron Pines in with TU and the PM Watershed etc. because you wish to discredit any group that I support. They are in fact the east side equivalent of the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council because they do only habitat work and do not take positions on game management. Shame on you for making up such a terrible lie about such a fine organization. Who are the Huron Pines advocates that helped pen FO 213? Will this be another case where you can&#8217;t tell us but we&#8217;ll just have to take your word for it? Ha! In the second one you pull out a provocative buzzword and try to discredit me by association. Trouble is I have never made any such claim, you just made this up, too. I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if you are sure you read it somewhere or that &#8220;someone&#8221; told it to you though. Those are pretty common excuses from you guys when you are caught in a lie.



> Over and over you attack us personally or our organization GLFSA like you have in your last post in an effort to befuddle the discussion so you won&#8217;t have to answer the real issue that you and your friends have manipulated the system for selfish reasons.


 Oooh, the poor GLFSA is being attacked. Someone is asking where are money comes from. It&#8217;s so unfair! All they did was falsely accuse TU of taking bribes, claim that the DNR has abdicated its responsibilities, throw suspicion on the funding of TU, falsely accuse the WiDNR of stacking the deck, claim that DNR policies are part of a global conspiracy and ask another poster who he is and who is employer is. Just because of that somebody has the nerve to ask where the GLFSA gets its backing. Did you think no one would ever get tired of it and ask you to provide some details about your own organization? I have never asked about your personal information because it doesn&#8217;t matter, either your ideas hold water or they don&#8217;t. Doesn&#8217;t matter who says them.



> It is ironic that you twist the issue that because we don&#8217;t supply you with information, somehow it supports your insinuation that we are undemocratic and fear public elections.


 Hang on there. I responded to a series of posts that were lamenting the election of people who do not exclusively support hunting above other outdoor activities. I referenced other situations where the validity of citizens opinions were questioned because of their address. You have twisted that into something else entirely and accused me of doing the twisting. Who&#8217;s playing the dirty tricks rhetorically? Your organization says it stands for the rights of all, but acts otherwise here. Sen. Feinstein says she is for responsible gun ownership, I don&#8217;t believe her either.



> We don&#8217;t believe that opening state parks to hunting and trapping is a stupid, empty symbolic gesture that wastes everyone&#8217;s time. We are sportsmen and we support hunting and trapping in all of our state parks unless of course they pose a real safety issues and making that statement makes me wonder if you have a good reason to hide your identity. I know one of the members of the Cold Water Committee who supports special privileges for your friends is a member of the Sierra Club who recently came out publically against trapping.


 That hunting is unsuitable in some parts of State Parks is what I said and apparently the WiDNR feels that way, too. What makes you think that, in a state that has almost twice the per capita participation in hunting and fishing as Michigan and a Conservation Congress that has been &#8216;Long dominated by the "hook and bullet" crowd&#8217; in the words in the words of the article, the mandate to include hunting in all parks is anything besides political pandering? Safety seems like an obvious reason for hunting to be banned in some parks or in areas of parks, just like it is in Michigan. The emotional reaction to the article is typical of people who think with their hearts and not with their brains. At the end though, you can't help yourself and despite saying that you support public input and citizens right to be treated fairly you echo Ranger Ray's comment that no organization that does not pass an ideological litmus test for all activities should be allowed to sit on any DNR committee. You couldn't even keep up the "all people" charade for a single post.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

I guess you missed the part where I said "....We are sportsmen and we support hunting and trapping in all of our state parks unless of course they pose a real safety issue...." and you even quoted that statement.

Kzoo, there is a freight train comming in the next few days or weeks that might be a paradigm changer for the entitlement class and I don't think you and your friends even saw it comming. Just thought I'd give you something else to doubt.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Splitshot said:


> I guess you missed the part where I said "....We are sportsmen and we support hunting and trapping in all of our state parks unless of course they pose a real safety issue...." and you even quoted that statement.
> 
> Kzoo, there is a freight train comming in the next few days or weeks that might be a paradigm changer for the entitlement class and I don't think you and your friends even saw it comming. Just thought I'd give you something else to doubt.


The discussion was about the WI legislatures pandering and MI parks were used as an analogy where hunting would not be appropriate. Sorry that you couldn't keep the two things separate.

Don't know what freight train you've got coming but it is likely to be derailed by SB 289 which puts some of the non-biological reasons for GR waters into law.

I asked you several other questions in my previous post, are you going to answer them? I know it's been a few days but they are still there for you and everyone else to read.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

kzoofisher said:


> Don't know what freight train you've got coming but it is likely to be derailed by SB 289 which puts some of the non-biological reasons for GR waters into law.


I think you should read it again without the rose colored glasses?


----------

