http://www.tndeer.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=31&sid=aa4c3de1a5399cf772afa1cb9ff9f5f7That's a link to the forum where the TWRA answers questions on tndeer. Looks like they get 4 or 5 questions a week, so it's not something that takes them a lot of time. Skinny has said that he offered to do something similar for our dcnr, but they have no interest in interacting with the public. Skinny sure doesn't need me defending him, but I can understand his frustration with them. Obviously, the TWRA wants to support their state's a largest hunting forum, and obviously, the AL dcnr does not. They will travel around and tell hunters about the new rules they have made up for us, but don't seem interested in any interaction with us before they make them. Of course, I'm talking about the policy maker at the top and not the dcnr employees that post here.
FWIW, I've been posting on aldeer for over 13 years and I haven't seen any great change in it. It's always been the best place on the net for girly men to come and get their little feelings hurt.
. Better have a thick skin if you wanta hang out here. What has changed is the dcnr. In my lifetime, I've seen it go from an agency that saw its mission as serving the people to one that wants to rule the people.
I think it is crappy that the DCNR would not jump on the opportunity that has been offered to them in the past by ALDEER. IMO it is 'ignoring the importance of the constituents as usual' especially knowing that other states can do such things. OFFICIAL social media outreach would go a long way with the DCNR. I know that in my experience there have been several occasions when I asked more that one DCNR employee about the same regulation and received varying interpretations. This may be their fear, but should also be a motivation to have officially designated spokespersons who's answers can be taken to the bank (and judge if necessary). As if things weren't confusing enough already, they continue to worsen the issues. I usually embrace change when it is well planned and beneficial to the constituents, wildlife, and habitat. Which does not seem to be the case here at all.
