Nershi wrote:I like where you are going with this FF. I wonder if we could get an outdoor writer to publish an article to point out these facts.
Absolutely not. Sure, it might be possible but I would never ask or want them to. The outdoor writers are a huge part of the problem in this state. They had an enormous impact on the teal season and the overall idiotic culture of waterfowlers here, and the media as a whole and how they can sway public opinion is why a hunting season should never be set from public input. The DNR got that right in the wolf case; public input is not scientific.
Dennis Anderson, the guy who argued for the "MO model" because the DNR needs to be able to make management decisions independent from the legislature and public opinion, is a giant hypocrite and dbag that uses his media influence whenever he can to sway public opinion to his own and then sicks them on the DNR. He did exactly that with his absurdly biased and melodramatic '2025' piece. He's all for the DNR making sound science based management decisions....except for all the times he doesn't like them.
Doug Smith seems like an alright guy but he's also part of the problem because of his close ties to both Cordts and Nylin; which ironically has helped tremendously as evidence supporting my claims and will make it very easy for people unfamiliar with all this to connect the dots and get that what I'm saying is true. Go to the Star Tribune site and search "Cordts." All the teal articles will be on the first two pages of results. If you take the time to read them you'll notice two things. One, how drastically the department did a 180 from pushing the USFWS to get a teal season for years to getting the option and then ultimately opposing it. Two, in almost every article Cordts is quoted in relation to the teal season Brad Nylin is also quoted stating the MWA's opposition. The Doug Smith articles make it extremely obvious to show how DNR's transgression took place and who influenced it.
Dave Orrick-Pioneer Press, I don't know enough about. Outdoor News, not big enough, also don't know enough about the writers. The bottom line is they are all going to biased. They spend time working with and depend on the DNR and MWA for quotes and probably enjoy going to stuff like the symposium for material to fill articles; that's their job.
If I were to go to any press it'd be the writer who followed the wolf season case. They'd probably write it like it is. Plus here's a fun fact, HFW has 58,914 likes on facebook and the MWF has 1,410. Who would you target if you were looking to cause a stir? Who do you think is already more riled up and more likely to side with me when shown the inconsistent decisions for wolves and teal, the HFW crowd or other hunters?
The bottom line is I have zero intention to push public opinion for support, form "Hunters for Teal Seasons," organize a teal rally, start a petition, take a turn holding the mic during the Q&A portion of an idiotic symposium, or any of the other stupid shyte that's become the norm in this state and caused backwards wildlife management.
I'm going to do what sane and normal people do to resolve conflicts with legal implications---make sure their azz ends up in court in front of a judge, one that's probably (hopefully) never heard of a blue-winged teal. That way the facts and testimony can be reviewed without bias and an objective ruling can be made on whether or not the DNR's actions were legal and fair to the residents of our state.