Originally posted by BREW...: Not one time was proposal 2 ever referred to as the more "aggressive" proposal untill now.... If anything proposal 2 was referred as being watered down and wouldn't work!!
Interesting that now some are referring it to be the "Aggressive"
False!
Did a quick search on this website and found a thread I started prior to the end of the 2013 season. Here is a direct copy/paste...and FYI BREW, you own Post #3 on that thread. I did BOLD the word "aggresive" for clarity here...used three times in one paragraph. Here you go:
"Due to the outcry from the non-agenda driven folks (yeah right)….it was back to the drawing board for the DNR. This time tasked to come up with something different…and by the way…don’t touch gun season. How’s that for a set of handcuffs? Next up….2.0…..an aggresive deer killing proposal if there ever was one. Compared to 1.0….the second proposal increased general firearm/ML opportunity by roughly 40% (I used 28/40 to get there. I can’t recall the final 1.0 number, but 28 is close, the 2.0 number was 43 this year, but varies annually). In addition to that, 2.0 added roughly two full months of crossbow pressure that had never existed. By adding more potential focus on antlered deer (instead of less, 1.0)….it required very aggressive measures to address that antlerless harvest ratio mentioned earlier. It is what it is….and is nothing remotely comparable to 1.0. To be clear, I’m not certain 1.0 would have produced the desired results? Just pointing out it was a much less aggressive approach."
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
