I think Ego is a healthy characteristic in appropriate doses. Other times, Ego can get out of control.
What does Ego mean to you?
Does the presence of Ego in other individuals have a positive or negative effect on you?
To me, "ego" means having to do with one's self. No biggie.
There is not a person on the planet, or one that has ever existed, that doesn't or hasn't done things for reasons having to do with their ego.
To me, it's not until it's taken to the level of "egotism," which to me is the obsession with one's self, caused by an undue sense of self-importance, that is a problem.
Presence of ego in others doesn't bother me, presence of egotism does.
KPC
Some equate certain things to ego when it may not be that way for the other guy.
For instance if one guy wants to see more deer that's not due to his ego IMO but more he wants it out of boredom or finds seeing deer more enjoyable then seeing none
Some equate ego to everything we do but I do not.
If you say your wife is better looking than mine then ego might come into play. lol
In my opinion, that is the very definition of ego. If he is wanting to see more deer for his own pleasure, it is driven by his ego. Not a bad thing, it just is.
Now, if he wants others to see less or shoot less because he feels he deserves to see more, that is egotism, and therefore, in my opinion, a problem.
KPC
_______________________________________________________
e·go
noun
1.
the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
_______________________________________________________
e·go·tism
noun
1.
the practice of talking and thinking about oneself excessively because of an undue sense of self-importance.
_______________________________________________________
That's why it always confuses me somewhat when people get all jacked out of joint when it is said that they do things for their ego. That's perfectly normal.
Doing things because you are an egotist...not so much.
KPC
Its likely best in these kinds of debates we have to leave the word ego or you are wanting this and that to stroke your ego or all because of ego out of the discussion.
I rarely use the word ego in a post so I am not misunderstood. I have enough issues with some of you already so no point in me adding that your all a bunch of ego maniacs with and egotistical chip on your shoulders. right?
LMAO... Just messing with ya boyz.
I am rabble rousing right now just to be clear
The term ego is not a pejorative. A healthy ego, a sense of self worth, generates confidence in personality. This is not a bad thing as long as the foundation for this confidence can be verified via demonstrated character decisions based on honesty and factual examples. When someone with a strong ego, uses their confidence and capabilities to the benefit of the common good, Ego is a good thing.
However, if someone with a strong Ego uses that same confidence to scam people... to use information falsely, to front an agenda that serves to damage others in order to get what HE wants, then Ego becomes a nasty word.
Its interesting that as the APR discussion unfolded, and the proponents were asked to provide their scientific reasons for implementing a policy that was so "social" (I want it because me and my friends all want it) in nature; they could not support any benefits to the health of the herd or to the "common good". This left very little in terms of "why do you want it then?". The obvious answer was "we want APR's because we aren't seeing enough big deer to keep us happy with our hunting and our harvest". Their "reasons" were not biologically imperative, they were only "socially imperative FOR THEM", not the other hunters who didn't share their "social" displeasure with the current state.
At this point EGO became a term that made them look bad, even to themselves, and hence the "term" ego came to be an accusatory slam, when in reality, it was just a description of the emotional state of the proponents. They want APR's because it would provide THEM with something they wanted, but couldn't get without taking something away from someone else.
Egotism vs. Ego.
I know mine did...and I'm glad.
I still take the test every issue.
:)
KPC
Cmon man your sense of how it went down is a bit off balance. When you tell someone they want this and that due to ego it was usually following something unkind or it was followed by something to put them off.
Wording in text format is key to a discussion.
Just because they did not provide something you saw fit to call scientific evidence does not mean that they should be hit with what comes before and after when you use the word ego.
I know many people who want to see more bucks. Sure seeing more bucks is ego driven just like ever single thing in life if we hold true to the narrow definition of the word. Everything from the time we wake to the time we sleep is ego. However in their mind seeing more bucks is not about their ego so much as just seeing more bucks. Yeah I know there one in the same. Whatever I guess.
You attach all wanting to see more bucks as ego driven and then you take the liberty to add that they want trophies to it and that their ego is driving this pattern and that their ego is hurting your ego driven hunting. That's where it turns on its head.
Its funny because your ego is at the center of wanting things to remain the same. Right?
Be fair now.
Disclaimer: In no part of the following does the word "you" apply to Hammer, its a general "you", in the plural, not specific to any individual. If "you" see yourself in any of my examples, don't take offense unless you "see" yourself specifically, but in any case, I am not addressing anyone specifically here.
Mea Culpa.... I am not without vitriol in those exchanges. I did my share of biting. I apologized to the one guy I felt bad about it.
"I know many people who want to see more bucks. Sure seeing more bucks is ego driven just like ever single thing in life if we hold true to the narrow definition of the word. Everything from the time we wake to the time we sleep is ego. However in their mind seeing more bucks is not about their ego so much as just seeing more bucks. Yeah I know there one in the same. Whatever I guess. "
And that was my point... Just admit it. Admit that APRs have nothing to do with science and everything to do with what they wanted, at the expense of someone else. Just admit it. I can accept reality, even when I don't like the result. My point was to encourage people see themselves for who they are. If they choose to continue to embrace APR's at my expense, I can live with that. But so will they. I won't like the outcome, but at a least the people who voted this into being will see themselves for what is reality. It is all about what they want, not about what is good for the health of the herd.
"You attach all wanting to see more bucks as ego driven and then you take the liberty to add that they want trophies to it and that their ego is driving this pattern and that their ego is hurting your ego driven hunting. That's where it turns on its head. "
This is a fair point to make. I want what I want too. I want to hunt deer. I don't care how big, just biologically responsible. My ego process says "Dave, if you hunt, you must respect habitat carrying capacity, and even if you WANT to see more deer, MORE DEER in a given area might be BAD for habitat and bad for winter survival. You can't expect to see a LOT of deer if that means it might damage the habitat. Dave's ego takes a backseat to science" I embrace that. My Ego also tells me that deer hunting is a first come first serve business. If I kill a legal deer when its small, I took my opportunity to hunt and used it. APR guys criticize me for killing THEIR deer when its still smaller than they will find EGO satisfying. To that I say... too freaking bad. I didn't steal something from you. I made an effort that you obviously didn't, because I shot it first. You weren't HAPPY with the smaller deer, because it didnt satisfy your EGO. It satisfied mine just fine. You made a choice NOT to shoot it, and now you want a law that PREVENTS me from shooting it. Your Ego trumps mine because YOU got a law passed. If there was ANY sort of biological imperative that suggested there was a benefit to APR's I might listen. There is NOT. No one will tell you otherwise, not even the DNR. My ego process for harvesting deer is based on sound biology. The APR guy's ego process is based only on self want. We both want something different. Mine is supported by biology. APR guy can't make the same claim.
"Its funny because your ego is at the center of wanting things to remain the same. Right? "
Yes... my ego wants to see an optimum amount of deer based on habitat carrying capacity and the scientific biological game management practices currently in place that provide for that. I can live with the results of sound scientific management and I relegate all decisions on population size, antlerless permit recommendations and harvest opportunities to science first. I believe that my Ego is less important than the science and biology. In fact my Ego thrives on being able to make this claim. APR guys, if they are honest, cannot. The instant they can claim that biology and science is their primary motivating factor, I will listen. Not before.
I know when I 1st thought about this I thought well maybe this would be good. It will be the same for everyone and universal so no harm and on top of that most hunter want bigger bucks regardless of weather you think I am wrong about that.
At 1st I thought little of it because it does not effect me very much due to how many deer I let walk. Little did I know until I began to think about how many deer I pass up that are legal that now will not be and how that might effect the other guy who could shoot them and now cant. It was not about ego or selfishness like we have often heard thrown around here but more just a lack of in depth consideration of its effect. I think the way I processed it at 1st is the same for just about everyone. They never even really consider the other guy in that particular way
We all will have the same opportunity on a 1st come 1st serve basis under the new rules or the old. I would never expect a guy to pass up a deer that I might. If its a small 4 point and its legal and they shoot it then I am very happy they were happy. I would never be critical of people for shooting whatever deer they want. It would be wrong of me to do so. I use to be the same way and killed the 1st deer I saw but after years of hunting I let many walk only to hear the next guy blasting away. I always crack a smile too because I know they are happy for their trophy and I know I will still get mine.
Sometimes it works out that I get way more meat by waiting and other times I have to knuckle down and shoot what left. To me it has no real effect. Who is it that tells you that you shot their deer? That seems a bit straw man because I do not ever recall any APR guy saying that your killing their little deer before it has a chance to get big so they can kill it. Are you taking a bit of artistic liberty in that statement?
As for more deer in the habitat. The area you mentioned where you hunt is not anywhere near HCC the last I check. Down here where I hunt you must consider those things with a bit more urgency because if everyone let the deer walk I do we would have a problem. However areas like where you hunt will see no HCC issues by protecting more young bucks IMO. You will dislike it because if you see a small fork horn you cant shoot it but neither can the next guy.
" Mine is supported by biology. APR guy can't make the same claim"
Neither one can say at this point that either are biologically more sound than the other. This is not a discussion here about health and biology but there is no more an advantage for tiny bucks being in a herd over giant ones. Both have a biological impact that are pretty much equal. APR guys don't say they want deer over HCC or disease etc. They want the same as you but just more of it and some want more of it with slobbering wall hanging monster racks to go with it. Most however are content with what they perceive as a decent buck. Decent to most people I know is a big 6 point or a average basket rack 8. These are a far cry from monster bucks. They are just average deer for their age. Getting to that age is where people differ.
You keep mentioning science versus ego but the fact remains that science has not really shown us that having a small APR will be biologically unsound.
I really do think most folks never consider it the way you do and they just want to see more bucks. In my mind at 1st I thought well seeing more bucks would make it more fun even if I cant shoot them and it also increase the odds dramatically that I can shoot an older deer that has more meat and maybe a decent rack.
I must confess I have only shot about 10 bucks in my life that were below a 4 point. It may be weird to swallow but I actually feel bad when I would shoot a small button buck or a young doe. Its like putting a puppy to sleep over an old worn out dog. One is harder than the other to me. 2 years ago I shot a button buck and put a bad shot on it and I felt horrible for two reasons. 1 because I shot a tiny deer that had no real meat and 2 because it was not a clean kill and I know what happened after that. I have shot small racked deer with huge bodies several times though. If a buck is a huge 5 point with a skinny body he walks. I want as much meat as I can get.
Now I am not saying I wait until they are monsters but I have issues killing tiny deer. If I am going to arrow a deer and cause it pain I want to get enough out of it that the deer was worth it being taken. Sounds weird and corny but its how I feel. I do not expect others to feel like I do and do not fault them for killing whatever they want. Each of us have what we perceive to be an effected and moral and fulfilling hunt. You shoot a tiny deer and are happy then I am equally as happy for you. I just would not be for me for many reasons the most being the effort for the amount of meat I would get.
Hammer" Neither one can say at this point that either are biologically more sound than the other."
Actually I can support my biological imperatives. I can support Traditional Deer Hunting Management using science to demonstrate a sustainable, healthy deer herd, where my harvest is beneficial to the overall goal. An APR proponent doesn't improve anything, APR's are not necessary for any health issues, survival issues, any issue whatsoever except social gratification. My method doesn't restrict anyone. APR methods do. Its an intrusion on some, for the benefit of others Ego.... nothing more.
"You keep mentioning science versus ego but the fact remains that science has not really shown us that having a small APR will be biologically unsound. "
Have you been reading Jim's information on dispersal and disease transmission and spread? There is nothing to gain with APR's health wise, and potential to lose. Sounds like a bad bet.
"It may be weird to swallow but I actually feel bad when I would shoot a small button buck or a young doe"
Given the number of deer you say you have killed, the consistent number of deer you are exposed to every year, the understanding that if you let fifteen deer walk by today, that you will see an equal number tomorrow, I do not doubt that you might feel bad about taking a lesser deer. Some people do not have the same experience you do. Some hunters (me) get one or two chances at ANY legal deer all year. Each experience is different. If I had the same exposure to your opportunity, I might feel the same as you. I don't. So when other hunters limit my one or two chances to NO chances, I take it personally.
I have read Jims data but we do not have solid evidence this will happen. On top of that the general rule I see is to suspend APRS and baiting when disease is found so it would become moot not to mention the links are tidiest at best. There is not an auto mechanism yet but we know what the DNR does when they find diseases. There should be an auto mech in place
There is no biological imperative to your way of managing deer that's more or less imperative to those who want APRS.
I do not let 15 deer walk and I hunt no different now then I did when I hunted state land all the time. I let deer walk then as well.
You are in the same boat as everyone in your region and this is why APR has gotten a foothold. There is a reason the support is so low here compared to there. If you had the number of deer we have this issue would go away for both areas.
If you want to really make APRs a thing of the past sooner rather than later then a new strategy is needed because the current one is not working. I am on board with defeating forced APRS but the current way to defeat them is highly ineffective.
I am also onboard if 70% of the hunters want them and its done legally and properly and honestly. I may be against them but who am I to be selfish and inflict my way of hunting on others if its done legally and I am in the minority.
Keep in mind there is no biological imperative for the 2nd combo tag having a 4 point APR on one side attached to it but your all for that right? Why not make it 6 or 8 or maybe 3 or 2 points on the 2nd tag. What biological imperative is there to it being 4 points? There are 2 sides to every picture and we tend to only see or acknowledge what we want and what makes us feel better or what fits our side of the argument the best or does not affect our hunting on an individual basis.
Ego is the Latin word for "I". We all have one and it's presentation to others is determined by the self. That is what defines "egotism".
This can be easily seen and determined by the above picture. LOL
Just think....If all the bucks running around were that big then APR would be moot and we would be trying to grow smaller deer so they could fit on the wall. lol
Well Hammer, I disagree with you. And it goes back to why wildlife management is needed in the first place.
Without wildlife management we would have no wildlife left (Passenger Pigeon Defense), so we need to establish a method that allows a limited amount of hunting, which strives to maximize this newly "restriction" in terms of a benchmark we refer to as "opportunity" or more recently "Hunter Days Afield".
In order to do this, WM (wildlife managers) take note of the habitat carrying capacity (HCC) with respect to the actual number of deer and then note the number of hunters that will utilize that habitat and attempt to harvest that population and establish a "sustainable" population target for the following summer, based on the equations that were developed in research.
A math model for success rate will then serve to establish the season lengths based upon the predicted number of animals harvested vs the number already established for "sustainability".
Within this harvest target are males and females. Males are expendable for the most part, and a sufficient number of females are required to provide fawn recruitment to maintain the "sustainable" population established above. When excess females exist in the population prior to hunting season, the WM will issue an appropriate number of antlerless permits to keep the population lower than the HCC but higher than the minimum required for sustainability.
At this point WM need to establish a visual clue minimum for hunters who are shooting at the primary expendable animals, the males. They do this with an arbitrary, but reasonable clue. An antler. Not the size of the antler, but the "presence" of one. The arbitrarily minimum size for hunters to positively identify a male without too many mistakes is 3". You don't need more than that to determine a male at a reasonable firearms distance. This becomes the legal "restriction" for determining Male vs Female.
This is WM 101. You NEED a 3" spike limit to make sure that the appropriate number of males and females are removed from the herd each fall to maintain population within HCC. This biology. This is imperative.
There is NO biological imperative to increase the size of the visual clue that signifies a male vs a female at this point. IF HOWEVER, there were so many mistakes made in identifying males by hunters that concerned the WM, they could increase the visual clue higher by requiring 4" spikes on both side (for example), but this is not a concern in terms of positive identification at this time.
APR that require three points on a side do not fall within the scope of sex identification. NO biological imperative whatsoever.
We can agree to disagree I guess. We have discussed all this many times before right? We can really learn nothing more than we already know. Just as you say there is no biological imperative and its only an ego thing and you want others to just admit as such the anti side needs to admit their fallacies as well right?
Those ego maniacs that want APRS want a sustainable herd just as much as you with only one added difference over that of the current TDM. They want more bucks in the herd with the rest being pretty much neutral. There is no biological imperative that is necessarily better by way of TDM over that of APRS. There just isn't.
Do not take offence but most of what you wrote is filler. There is no biological imperative that's better with one versus the other. Both maintain the herd at or below HCC. Both offer the opportunity for same hunter days afield. Both seem to indicate that over the long term (10 to 15 year sample groups) that harvest rates remain neutral (see Leelanau co). With APRS we do not see an explosion in deer #'s that put them over HCC. We certainly do not see that hunter days afield go down when APRS are in place. In fact it remains constant and in many cases it goes up because more hunters want their chance at what they think is a big buck or a better buck or they see the odds of now getting any buck at all going up because there are more of them.
Expendables. I agree with you on that partly. You need to look close and see that when APRS are in place the formula used will change. More does will need to be removed from the herd to keep total deer numbers the same. If they are at HCC then they need to pay close attention just as they would under any plan like that of TDM. You act as if things will drastically change or something. It wont. The evidence proves APRS increase hunter satisfaction and help stave off hunter loss. Those great things you mention that are outside of biological imperatives are only increased when APRS are in force. The herd numbers sustain and turn over just as they always have under either management plan.
Other than the tidiest link that APRS might and I repeat might cause an increase in diseases everything about APRS shows that they help hunting for the giant majority. Those who get pissy about them will still hunt to boot. I know people who have removed themselves from the ranks due to not seeing deer but I have yet to see someone stop hunting because more bucks are out there than before
Now again I will ask what biological imperative is there to the 4 point APR for the 2nd combo tag? Why not have it be 5 or 6 points or 2 or 3 points? What biological imperative is there for it being 4 points specifically? You seem to accept it as a regulation and do not rail against it. Why? Isn't the new APR that will affect about 8% of the buck herd for the 1st year the same thing?
APRs increase the age structure of bucks. It can be argued that this increases disease transmission. This is why in other states, APRs have been suspended where certain diseases are found.
KPC
To say that a herd that is closer to what nature would have to offer is worse for the herd IMO is preposterous.
Under that theory the herd in a natural state would be at extreme risk and never would have survived the eons.
You ignore salient points, you ignore the fact that my biological imperatives place NO restrictions on any other hunter, yet APR's do, they are intrusive on people who don't care one way or the other. They are not needed biologically, they don't add anything except bigger antlers to shoot at.
"Now again I will ask what biological imperative is there to the 4 point APR for the 2nd combo tag?"
The restricted tag is arbitrary, no doubt. I can live with it because it provides me the opportunity to harvest a normal deer before restrictions set in. The 4 point rule makes it difficult to get a second deer. I have no problem with that, it protects the total population. The reason for the restricted tag is not about actually killing another deer, its about being able to legally remain in the woods after killing your first deer instead of using "Aunt Martha's tag" on your first deer and then continue hunting with your own legitimate tag thereafter. If you want me to prove that this is the reason, I can't. I was told this by Ed Langenau, and he didn't write it down on paper so I could show now.
"Isn't the new APR that will affect about 8% of the buck herd for the 1st year the same thing? "
Nope... with APR's I am restricted right from the start. No deer to shoot unless they conform to some social benchmark ginned up from Ego deprived hunters.
" my biological imperatives place NO restrictions on any other hunter"
You mention HCC and a sustainable herd as the only real imperative which is of course a must to any herd that's hunted with APRS or w/o. Its a given. However some of the regulations we do have under TDM are not all biological imperatives to sustain a herd. One is no more an imperative as the other.
I mentioned the 2nd tag as an example of this. You have no issue restricting others on their 2nd deer but you take extreme issue with being restricted on the 1st. You say "normal deer" when it pertains to the 1st deer. To me any deer is normal. I think those who want APRS have a definition that's different than yours that's all.
"The reason for the restricted tag is not about actually killing another deer"
Yes it is! Its about restricting you on what you can kill though.
APRS are not all about antler ego and if I was one of those people that were all for them I would take extreme offense to that. I have many family members in the affected counties and many of them could care less how big the antlers are on the deer's head. They just want to be able to get a buck again. These folks I mention are great hunters and for years have done all they can to harvest deer. Things are so bad around some of the areas that they have not killed a deer for years so they are all for APRS now when before they were not. Its not about antlers to all of them and you refuse to except that for some reason.
Its not all antler ego. For the anti side to label the pro side as greedy antler hunters that are ego driven only so they can get bigger racks on their wall is mega BS. Its holy unfair and rude. Not everyone that wants APRS is all about big antlers. Why cant you guys admit that? Your blinded by hate.
So, without APRs, bucks will be available for your family to shoot, at least a year before they could shoot them WITH APR's in the picture. If they don't care about antlers, shooting a small spike should be acceptable to them, right?
"However some of the regulations we do have under TDM are not all biological imperatives to sustain a herd."
Can you be a little more specific here, please? I'd like to address this, but Im not sure what you are referring to
"I think those who want APRS have a definition that's different than yours that's all. "
Totally agree with you. APR proponents think that normal deer have 4 points on a side and look like the cover of Field and Stream. I think a normal deer has four legs, a brown body and white tail...
DB said "The reason for the restricted tag is not about actually killing another deer"
Hammer says; "Yes it is! Its about restricting you on what you can kill though. "
My sources (at the time the Combo tag was implemented) said otherwise. The Combo tag was a direct reaction to the Aunt Martha or Deer for Camp scenario. Hunters regularly bought a tag for Aunt Martha and used it themselves, making them scofflaws and violators. The Combo used a restricted second tag to eliminate the need for hunters to buy an Aunt Martha tag. They could kill one deer on Nov 15 and then keep legally hunting with the boys afterwards...the only thing they had to do was wait for a big deer that probably would never show up. They stayed in the woods legally, even if they never shot another deer. You can choose to not believe me, but that is the way it went down. I got it from the head of whitetails at the time.
"These folks I mention are great hunters and for years have done all they can to harvest deer. "
Welcome to the world of the Everyman Deer Hunter... success might have been guaranteed to some hunters in the past, but living with the notion that deer are not always going to allow you to harvest them, makes it "hunting" instead of "shooting".
"Things are so bad around some of the areas that they have not killed a deer for years so they are all for APRS now when before they were not."
Are you telling me that they believe a new restrictive law will improve their chances of killing a deer (not a big deer right, cuz you said above, they don't care about antler size) any deer?
No DB your not getting it not to mention you left out the main point that followed the words you quoted where I said "These folks I mention are great hunters and for years have done all they can to harvest deer. Things are so bad around some of the areas that they have not killed a deer for years so they are all for APRS now when before they were not"
Doing what you did above to twist and distort to make a point that is opposite to what I was saying is why I get irritated with you. STOP IT! Be honest when you quote me and keep the entire context. If they are not seeing a buck to kill then it stands to reason that they cant kill small bucks the year B4 APRS right? Gezzz.
They believe falsely or not that APRS will increase the number of bucks running around in the herd and therefore increase their odds of seeing one and therefore increase there odds of harvesting one. Deer behavior 101 says deer that 1.5 years old disperse right? That means in their minds that deer will come into the area again where they hunt like they use to. They just want to see bucks again. You already know this and its a straw man but you persist on your incomplete quoting and twisting to try and make a point that is meaningless to what I was talking about. You act as if you suffer from anti apr fever..
"Totally agree with you. APR proponents think that normal deer have 4 points on a side and look like the cover of Field and Stream"
BS. Why a 3 point APR then? They didn't push for a 4 point APR did they? I thought it was 3. Wouldn't that indicate that they are fine with bucks just being only a little bigger if your theory had any merit and all APR folks are ego driven trophy hunters?
"Welcome to the world of the Everyman Deer Hunter... success might have been guaranteed to some hunters in the past, but living with the notion that deer are not always going to allow you to harvest them, makes it "hunting" instead of "shooting".
1st, Now you want to cut apart my response and answer to it two separate ways once way at the top and then use a different argument down at the end. RRRRRR This is why I cant stand your BS. I tried really hard to be nice to you but damn it you make it impossible when you pull this crap.
2nd, So hunting is supposed to suck for all eternity in areas where deer once flourished and because of TDM the deer in those areas are all but gone! Do the hunters not have a right to ask that their hunting lands be what they once were and what others in different areas enjoy where the same errors were not made? Gosh. I mean they do pay taxes and buy hunting licenses also right? I know lets screw them out of decent hunting or even remotely decent hunting and still make them pay.
3rd, this BS shooting versus hunting thing gets old with you. I hunt lands right now that have many deer on them and its hard as hell to get one but I always do. I could go back to areas I hunted years ago and put 2 times the effort in which would not even be possible by the way but if I did I still would be lucky to kill a deer. You seem to think hunting is getting a deer 1 time every 10 years. Gezzzz. Why have over 1 million deer in MI then DB? If every hunter went thru what some of these people are going thru no one would hunt after a while.
"not a big deer right, cuz you said above, they don't care about antler size"
You ridiculous nature and they way you talk down to others like right there is why I will go back to avoiding you again. You can believe what you want but the sarcasm you use only helps to sour the debate.
I will just move on and avoid your thread. Sorry I got involved or said anything.
I didn't mean to twist anything, I read what you write, but you know more about what you mean to say than what you actually write. I can't read your mind. I will not quote you anymore because this is where the wheels come off the wagon. Sorry...didn't mean to misinterpret what you mean. There was no malice intended. I was just reacting to what you wrote.
It always comes back to what your goals are and how you choose to obtain them.
APRS are not all about antler ego and if I was one of those people that were all for them I would take extreme offense to that. I have many family members in the affected counties and many of them could care less how big the antlers are on the deer's head. They just want to be able to get a buck again. These folks I mention are great hunters and for years have done all they can to harvest deer. Things are so bad around some of the areas that they have not killed a deer for years so they are all for APRS now when before they were not. Its not about antlers to all of them and you refuse to except that for some reason."
Hammer:
Just a couple observations/questions.
First, if you think the combo tag with the restricted second tag was implemented for the opportunity for hunters to kill another buck, you are mistaken.
Second, why would anyone that is not seeing enough deer, support a regulation that is intended and expected to put more pressure on antlerless deer, which will ultimately reduce the population even more?
KPC
My point is not about seeing any deer its about seeing bucks. Its a fact that more and more hunters want to see bucks when hunting and some want big ole grand daddy bucks to boot. "some." By people supporting APRS they think wrongly or rightly that it will give them more bucks. IMO it will but it will take a couple years. I do not fault them for wanting that.
We are not talking about deer in general because my friends and family that live in the 12 counties do see deer. We are talking about bucks. We "are" more and more a horn porn world and I do not disagree but I strongly disagree with the mentality that those who support APRS are for big ole monster field and stream bucks. Anyone with common sense knows that's impossible with a 3 point antler point restriction. To lump the entire group into the same category is preposterous and holy unfair to those like most of my northern friends and family. On their behalf I take offence.
As for the 2nd tag on the combo. I have filled mine almost every year so to say it so people cant fill it is bunk. It is intended to greatly restrict what you can kill therefore reducing more bucks being killed but its not to eliminate killing entirely. If that was its intention they would eliminate it. On a side note.... If only a few % of the hunters get a 2nd buck like the DNR claims then I must know most of them. lol
I personally believe w/o a shred of evidence that way more multiple buck kills are made every year then the DNR thinks.
DB,
I am sorry man but how can that be? I wrote clearly one sentence after another that stated clearly that I know many people in the north that just want to be able to get "a" buck again and some have went years w/o getting one and that they think APRS will bring some bucks into the picture that currently are not there. You then quote only part of it and somehow get to a point where in essence they could kill the same buck the year before aprs only it would be smaller even though I said many of them have not seen a buck for a long time. I mean Cmon man how is what I said taken any other way than it was written. I cannot understand your logic on that.
I have no issue with you quoting me at all but when you do so and quote one sentence in the middle of a paragraph and then say the opposite of what I said it is frustrating. Surly you know this and can see it.
To me it looked like you were doing it to make some point rather than just taking what I said at face value.
Quote me all you want but please just read it well before you guess the opposite of what I am saying.
Again if someone is not seeing any bucks and they want APRS thinking it will allow them to finally see some once again you cannot then say that they could kill that same buck B4 APRS but it would just be smaller. Saying since antler means little to them only inflames it especially when it looks sarcastic. After all...... I said there are no bucks for many of them B4 APRS so your point was irrelevant. right?
Spring may come but if I go outside very long I will freeze to death or slip and fall on the 4 inches of ice under the 3 foot of snow. lol
I hate to do this hammer, because I know what this always turns into with you, but oh well. I never said, or even implied, that people can't fill the second tag on a combo tag. I've done it numerous times myself.
What I said was "if you think the combo tag with the restricted second tag was implemented for the opportunity for hunters to kill another buck, you are mistaken."
The combo tag was introduced as a revenue enhancer, and a method by whichhunters could legally increase their days afield without having much of an effect on the resource, if any.
Under the old system of single season tags, if you took a deer on opening day of bow season, you lost the next six weeks of hunting, waiting for gun season to start. With a combo tag, you never have to miss a day. While some people fill both tags every year, the percentage that do overall is insignificant in terms of harm to the resource. What it does do is cause hundreds of thousands of hunters to purchase two tags before ever having filled the first. In my opinion it's a win win.
KPC
For those who will say this didn't occur all that much, the DNR knew better and fixed that problem with a Combo tag. I gladly pay for both tags because it ensures that I can hunt every single day of the 3 month season. I have only filled this Combo tag twice in the many years it has been available.
:)
KPC
KPC
Just not part of my thought process.
:)
Just curious, could it be said that death was Jimi's PLE?
KPC
Jimi was a hot flame on a short fuse, but I think any reference to him being a Liberal might come from confusing his place in the rock pantheon with actual interest in social causes. He didn't like the Vietnam War, and wrote a couple songs along those lines, but basically he was just spaced out by the music he heard in his head.
Interesting!!
I was involved with a group that supported the Wounded Warriors. Everytime one guy spoke it was I did this and I did that when he spoke of the group and what was going on. I finally told him one day the "I" is not in the word "team". = EGO
It minimizes the contributions of all the others, which is not so great for morale.
It's an egotistical thing to put yourself at the forefront, while ignoring those around you who have a vested interest in the outcome, right?
Bigger is not always better!!