01-24-2007, 05:18 AM
O.K. , I'm back .
I did write a post here , but it was more like standing up on a soap box and yelling at the wind [blush].
As far as the D.N.R. goes I have this to say . I personally think that the C.O.'s are not the problem . They are a fantastic bunch of people that do a great justice to the uniform they dawn everyday . I do commened them for working in an enviornment that most would have second thoughts of persuing . I wouldn't want to sneak up on someone at night that is armed with a gun out in the middle of the woods . That takes a bravery that is beyond my comprehention .
C.O.'S rule [cool] !
I do know there occupation is to uphold the law and to protect the states natural recourses that we the people have put them in stewardship of . I do not recall that the people of this state have turned over our rights in the decision making process reguarding how a government agency is to conduct the business we have intrusted it to do , nor do I belive any of us have chosen to abandon our responsibility of stewardship concerning our natural resourses . All of us must take our responsibilitys serousily , not to just preserve our sporting heritage for the hear and now but , for future generations .
The D.N.R. has gone from the custodian position we entrusted it to and become a entity of it's own that feels we ordinary citisens don't know what is good for us or our resourses .
Recently there was a house bill that would turn over public boat launches ( road ends )to local governments or lake associations .
Who were the sponsors of this bill ?
Was it the family that has gone to the shores of those launches to fish because it is the only available public acess site on a otherwise private lake ? No , they were left out , why? Because part of the bill would eliminate fishing and picknicing from those areas .
The sponsors were several lake association members , home builders and people that live on private lakes . The D.N.R. also suported the bill , reason , it would free up time patrolling those areas reducing costs incured .
Funny , when you read thru the documents concerning the dutys that the D.N.R. has , promoting outdoor recreation to the public is mentioned foremost . Who stood up for that family that would like to spend a day fishing together ? Was it the D.N.R. ?
No , I did .
I do not see the yellow gate as being handicaped acessable , a handicaped hunter can purchase his special license to hunt from there vehical (following the laws of corse ) but , he can't do it on the far side of the gate .
You are entitled to harvest two deer a year if you choose to do so , one license at a time , posession of two tags , illeagle , why ?
That makes no sence .
I don't know how many hunters I have run into over the years who have gone hunting and only seen antlerless deer , wouldn't making your first tag antlerless or buck help to bring balance to the buck doe relationship in this state ? Wouldn't letting the hunter have his opurtunity at putting some meat on the table be it doe or buck bring hunters numbers up ?
It would but , that would cut into the generated renivew with the sale of drawing aplications and antlerless licenses. Most would think it's not that much money but when it's all added up were talking millions .
All I guess I am saying is if you want to increase participation in recreational sports , simplify the rules . The D.N.R. is suposed to promote outdoor activitys . The constant restrictions being introduced have proven themselves to be a strong deturing factor when dealing with the public sector .
That's all for today .
[signature]
I did write a post here , but it was more like standing up on a soap box and yelling at the wind [blush].
As far as the D.N.R. goes I have this to say . I personally think that the C.O.'s are not the problem . They are a fantastic bunch of people that do a great justice to the uniform they dawn everyday . I do commened them for working in an enviornment that most would have second thoughts of persuing . I wouldn't want to sneak up on someone at night that is armed with a gun out in the middle of the woods . That takes a bravery that is beyond my comprehention .
C.O.'S rule [cool] !
I do know there occupation is to uphold the law and to protect the states natural recourses that we the people have put them in stewardship of . I do not recall that the people of this state have turned over our rights in the decision making process reguarding how a government agency is to conduct the business we have intrusted it to do , nor do I belive any of us have chosen to abandon our responsibility of stewardship concerning our natural resourses . All of us must take our responsibilitys serousily , not to just preserve our sporting heritage for the hear and now but , for future generations .
The D.N.R. has gone from the custodian position we entrusted it to and become a entity of it's own that feels we ordinary citisens don't know what is good for us or our resourses .
Recently there was a house bill that would turn over public boat launches ( road ends )to local governments or lake associations .
Who were the sponsors of this bill ?
Was it the family that has gone to the shores of those launches to fish because it is the only available public acess site on a otherwise private lake ? No , they were left out , why? Because part of the bill would eliminate fishing and picknicing from those areas .
The sponsors were several lake association members , home builders and people that live on private lakes . The D.N.R. also suported the bill , reason , it would free up time patrolling those areas reducing costs incured .
Funny , when you read thru the documents concerning the dutys that the D.N.R. has , promoting outdoor recreation to the public is mentioned foremost . Who stood up for that family that would like to spend a day fishing together ? Was it the D.N.R. ?
No , I did .
I do not see the yellow gate as being handicaped acessable , a handicaped hunter can purchase his special license to hunt from there vehical (following the laws of corse ) but , he can't do it on the far side of the gate .
You are entitled to harvest two deer a year if you choose to do so , one license at a time , posession of two tags , illeagle , why ?
That makes no sence .
I don't know how many hunters I have run into over the years who have gone hunting and only seen antlerless deer , wouldn't making your first tag antlerless or buck help to bring balance to the buck doe relationship in this state ? Wouldn't letting the hunter have his opurtunity at putting some meat on the table be it doe or buck bring hunters numbers up ?
It would but , that would cut into the generated renivew with the sale of drawing aplications and antlerless licenses. Most would think it's not that much money but when it's all added up were talking millions .
All I guess I am saying is if you want to increase participation in recreational sports , simplify the rules . The D.N.R. is suposed to promote outdoor activitys . The constant restrictions being introduced have proven themselves to be a strong deturing factor when dealing with the public sector .
That's all for today .
[signature]