What public land? If you live in NW Ohio that is a joke. I'd have to drive an hour minimum to find public land. Public isn't an option for me unless I leave at 2am or something.
Deer Management Stakeholder Organization.
- Thread starter Ohiosam
- Start date
- Status
- 39,067
- 274
I've redacted your previous question until this becomes a mutually beneficial discussion and not simply a place where you come to ask your questions and post up copy / paste PR releases. Since you stated that you have no intention of contributing to the sites discussions or content other than to serve your own agenda, and admitting that you simply post the same thing to numerous sites, your posts are no different than any other person showing up to push their stuff and not contribute. Usually such spam is deleted and the person sent a PM, but since I believe you can provide benefit through your answers we'll do it this way. You have questions, so do we, you want answers, so do we.
Unfortunatly you havent left me much choice in this regard by ignoring those questions or offering excuses. This will either be a mutually beneficial discussion or none at all Brent.
You could start by answering some of the questions that I've been asking for 6 months now without response. Do that and make this beneficial to everyone here not just yourself and you shouldn't have a problem getting the data you're after.
What stakeholders by organization name are pushing for the regrowth of the deer population in areas suffering from prior mismanagement? Which stakeholder by organization name is adamant that an increase in the huntable population must be part of the management plan?
Which stakeholders by name are against an increase in the deer population? What are their stated reasons? Do they back these reasons with data? If their data is financial such as Deer vehicle accident expenses, has anyone done a cost study to relate their numbers to lost participation rates from hunters and the impact of lost license, tag sales and economic impact due to either the current population loss or their desired loss? In short, if their agenda is successful what do they stand to gain gain vs what hunters and the hunting economy lose?
What is the live population by county today in comparison to what the population was around 2008? What is the population goal by county? What method was used to collect this data and what was the formula used to reach the final figure?
Joe as I’ve said before I’m not going to give you names at this time. As a group we are trying to improve the deer hunting in Ohio. Will there be some differences that we can’t overcome? Yep I believe so. By giving you names to throw darts at isn’t going to help achieve the goal of improving Ohio deer hunting. As for the 2008 population numbers, I believe you can find those on your own.
I'll be honest here. I'm tired of this thread. I can only go round the merry go round so many times before I get woozie and want to puke. When I get off, I'm in the same place. This is where this thread is at.
There isn't crap getting accomplished. If it is, we aren't allowed to know about it. Brent is doing his job. He is posting here but saying nothing substantial. He is posting on 3 other mystery sites (one which has about as much traffic as Mayberry.) I feel like the hunters better gear up for another screwing. Overall, this is Disappointing.
I guess if you don’t like getting darts thrown your way, you do t enter the playing field....
My take on his questions are to find the underlying agenda of each member on the panel, their take on what needs to be done speaks volumes too the outdoorsman of this state, and what we can expect from all of the members on it....
Like or not, as soon as you throw your hat in that arena you open yourself up for complete openness about what you’re up to and who’s of what opinions..... If said opinions don’t get brought out then the assumptions start too surface, right or wrong it’s going to happen if it hasn’t already....
Without naming names is there anyone in the meetings advocating for an increase in the herd size?
Now I'm on the other side of the page. I thought the OP was stating he was a PR guy for the panel and would report what they were doing. I'm sure the panel already has all the questions and are working on them. Are they going to solve the deer numbers back to the high numbers of several years ago, then I say no? Like it or not we will never see the high numbers like it was. Management will never permit it. Do I like this no but I'm just a small nut in the pile?
The panel already know the feelings of the majority of deer hunters about the low deer numbers.
I for one would like to see the future reports of what the panel is doing. These reports are not going to be to my liking but at least I will know what's going on.
The panel already know the feelings of the majority of deer hunters about the low deer numbers.
I for one would like to see the future reports of what the panel is doing. These reports are not going to be to my liking but at least I will know what's going on.
- 39,067
- 274
Then we have nothing more to discus and I see no benefit in continuing to give you a platform in which to push a one sided agenda.
Operating in secrecy without providing key information to the people of this state who own the natural resource is not a stakeholder. That is nothing more than 20 or so people sitting around chewing the fat who represent nobody but themselves.
I wish you the best in your role but I see no mutually beneficial reason to continue this discussion. I do not see my request for making the stakeholder agendas openly known an unreasonable request, at a bare minimum everyone should know where these people stand and what their agenda is. Its our resource also and we have that right to know. We're done here. Good day sir.
- 39,067
- 274
I'll find it and post it as it comes around so we can all talk about it.. As was said, the exact same thing is posted in about 6 different places. Going forward though i see no benefit in continuing to provide a platform for them to push a PR agenda without also being willing to have a transparent discussion with the people these stakeholders supposedly represent.
- Status