Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wct12" data-source="post: 368763" data-attributes="member: 8117">Would I have loved to hunt over that same bait pile my camera takes pictures over before archery season starts again? AbsolutelyBut this was about more then that. For me this was about one 1 way to reign in aGovernment agency that is unaccountable to the people of this state. The same phd holders that they want us to trust because they went to school a couple more years than me stand a podium and say that a bait pile that congregates deer outside of winter months is alot different then a food plot funded by the game and fish that congregates the exact same deer a bait pile does to a small area outside of winter months also is much better. That's not about science at that point. I want some accountability for the same agency that hosted public meetings, but wouldn't let the public ask questions in an open forum because someone in the crowd might have a decent idea that's scientifically backed that they don't have actual data and statistics to dispute. I want the same agency that let a deer population explode to more then double what they claim is sustainable, even though landowners and sportsmen from around the state in the years prior said the population was growing.. all fell on deaf ears because they do population counts and know what's best. (CWD was discovered in nodak the next year)I want the agency that my tag and tax dollars help operate to at least listen with open ears at the advisory board meetings and have an open and honest discussion. (Not just CWD.. I asked about moose populations and was told they don't have an actual plan, they just go by what landowners can seem to tolerate, but then don't listen when those landowners say the population is too high because crops are being damaged, moose/vehicle collisions are up, etc..) They say it's not ethics but the online portion of their Hunter safety says baiting falls into a gray area of ethics. I want them, if they are going to claim science and data, to actually have that science and data.. not possibilities, maybes, or this might work even though it hasn't in other states. Why not try to be proactive instead of reactive. Spend some of that federal money on university or private studies to find something that could actually stop/slow CWD down whether it be genetics, iron, humic acid, or something not thought about yet instead of using it to do the exact same things that haven't worked elsewhere. I want that agency to be open to listening at advisory meetings, not come in with a set agenda and to "inform" but to actually listen, because sometimes landowners and sportsmen who are amongst the wildlife every day know just as much about them as the people with some fancy letters behind their name. That's what I actually want in a very long winded answer.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA