https://www.nbc26.com/news/state/dnr-wont-participate-in-meeting-amidst-appointee-fight
Wisconsin Hunting Reports/Discussion
Wisconsin NRB & DNR, Not Political, TRUST ME!!!!!!
Displaying 16 to 30 of 182 posts
My guess is that it won't take long to find out.
Whether one liked Kaz's position or not, he did try to hold the DNR responsible.
DNR is already started to disregard policy and Statute to go around the citizens.
First, the DNR canceled the March CDAC meetings and is only holding an April Meeting, this limits Public input and is in violation of the CDAC Guidance.
Second, The DNR iis changing the Spring Hearings in regard to citizen input and voting. This is also against Statute pertaining to the Conservation Congress.
My prediction, those that support hunting, especially deer hunting, will not be happy.
Whether one liked Kaz's position or not, he did try to hold the DNR responsible.
DNR is already started to disregard policy and Statute to go around the citizens.
First, the DNR canceled the March CDAC meetings and is only holding an April Meeting, this limits Public input and is in violation of the CDAC Guidance.
Second, The DNR iis changing the Spring Hearings in regard to citizen input and voting. This is also against Statute pertaining to the Conservation Congress.
My prediction, those that support hunting, especially deer hunting, will not be happy.
It will be interesting with Kaz losing all his power and support from Prehn. Both He and Hilgensberg term expire in one more month,May of this year.
It was additionally curious why Bill Bruins, with no explanation resigned shortly after Prehn announced relinquishing his seat on the board.
Now with new members of the board and a new DNR secretary, will things be better or worse? Sad part, is there will still likely be politics involved.
It was additionally curious why Bill Bruins, with no explanation resigned shortly after Prehn announced relinquishing his seat on the board.
Now with new members of the board and a new DNR secretary, will things be better or worse? Sad part, is there will still likely be politics involved.
(apologies, can't find the quote tool...)
robertwhite says:
"This survey seems to have caused confusion."
I agree with this statement completely, and intimated as much in my first post explaining my experience with the survey:
that they (DNR) were reaching out... Perhaps inartfully, based upon the number of snowflakes upset by the process.
"If you’re a person who distrusts the DNR and thinks they are always up to no good (and I am NOT that type of person), this survey and the resulting messages would lead such a person to further their distrust of the DNR…. whether it’s warranted or not."
I agree with this position as well, and loaded my remark a bit..., perhaps inartfully ; )
robertwhite says:
"This survey seems to have caused confusion."
I agree with this statement completely, and intimated as much in my first post explaining my experience with the survey:
that they (DNR) were reaching out... Perhaps inartfully, based upon the number of snowflakes upset by the process.
"If you’re a person who distrusts the DNR and thinks they are always up to no good (and I am NOT that type of person), this survey and the resulting messages would lead such a person to further their distrust of the DNR…. whether it’s warranted or not."
I agree with this position as well, and loaded my remark a bit..., perhaps inartfully ; )
Prj,
This survey seems to have caused confusion. I too received an email from DNR with the subject line “Thank you for your interest!”, and I opened it that same day. Upon opening it, it read as if I had attempted to (or shown some interest?) in filling out a survey, but the DNR no longer needed my input because they had received enough responses. I had never heard of such a survey nor attempted to fill one out. It’s just a bit weird, I guess. As someone else mentioned earlier, it did feel almost like a fake email and a scam.
If this is related to a legitimate DNR survey, they may have gathered the information to help with whatever question they are trying to answer. However, the obvious unintended(?) confusion this is causing will not be helpful to the DNR I’d say. If you’re a person who distrusts the DNR and thinks they are always up to no good (and I am NOT that type of person), this survey and the resulting messages would lead such a person to further their distrust of the DNR…. whether it’s warranted or not.
AND……It’s obvious on this website that once a person has firmly plopped themselves on their respective opinion fence post, they aren’t going to budge.
This survey seems to have caused confusion. I too received an email from DNR with the subject line “Thank you for your interest!”, and I opened it that same day. Upon opening it, it read as if I had attempted to (or shown some interest?) in filling out a survey, but the DNR no longer needed my input because they had received enough responses. I had never heard of such a survey nor attempted to fill one out. It’s just a bit weird, I guess. As someone else mentioned earlier, it did feel almost like a fake email and a scam.
If this is related to a legitimate DNR survey, they may have gathered the information to help with whatever question they are trying to answer. However, the obvious unintended(?) confusion this is causing will not be helpful to the DNR I’d say. If you’re a person who distrusts the DNR and thinks they are always up to no good (and I am NOT that type of person), this survey and the resulting messages would lead such a person to further their distrust of the DNR…. whether it’s warranted or not.
AND……It’s obvious on this website that once a person has firmly plopped themselves on their respective opinion fence post, they aren’t going to budge.
oldhunter's response from DNR is consistent with my guesses; the DNR survey was looking for new hunters regarding education and safety.
That the DNR has sufficient participants to end the survey selection is understandable, and likely not some conspiracy to only listen to those that agree with them. That an individual was not able to access the survey is not indicative of a scam. If people were "rejected for a variety of reasons", I'd be quite interested in hearing those that aren't A) we have sufficient participants and B) we're looking for new hunters, not experienced. Both reasons already listed herein.
And Fin Bender, you misread or misunderstood my post. The snowflakes are those vocally upset that they couldn't participate in a survey that had a full complement of participants already, after being told just that. I'm certain that there are many better ways to have the DNR "listen to you" than yelling at clouds.
That the DNR has sufficient participants to end the survey selection is understandable, and likely not some conspiracy to only listen to those that agree with them. That an individual was not able to access the survey is not indicative of a scam. If people were "rejected for a variety of reasons", I'd be quite interested in hearing those that aren't A) we have sufficient participants and B) we're looking for new hunters, not experienced. Both reasons already listed herein.
And Fin Bender, you misread or misunderstood my post. The snowflakes are those vocally upset that they couldn't participate in a survey that had a full complement of participants already, after being told just that. I'm certain that there are many better ways to have the DNR "listen to you" than yelling at clouds.
I check e-mail every morning early, daily. The day I received the email and clicking on it, I thought the initial wording about the survey was a little odd. When I opened the e-mail and attempted to respond, it said sorry, already filled up. More suspicious thoughts.
Next day I get another e-mail saying if any questions to contact a included e-mail address. [email protected].. I googled that e-mail address and nothing exactly like that came up
I have not heard of any comments directly from the DNR about this at this point. I am really leaning more towards some kind of scam versus a legitimate DNR survey. Can't trust anybody these days.
Next day I get another e-mail saying if any questions to contact a included e-mail address. [email protected].. I googled that e-mail address and nothing exactly like that came up
I have not heard of any comments directly from the DNR about this at this point. I am really leaning more towards some kind of scam versus a legitimate DNR survey. Can't trust anybody these days.
if that was directed at me, I'll try. Many folks have stated that they received the e-mail regarding the survey. When attempting to respond to the survey they were rejected for a variety of reasons. My comment intended to convey that maybe they had received the answers they were looking for and then shut it down.
Displaying 16 to 30 of 182 posts
