Dan Salmon wrote:Kellory,
May I suggest you re-read the report.
One can tell that the action team is chock full of bow hunters group members, all the suggestions are the same as what has been preached all year by those same groups. Stack the teams with members and there is no way you are not the majority vote.
The DNR summary is not included, it will come later in the summer after the DTR implementation action teams are completed.
And yes, there is definitely bow hunter finagling.
How do you suppose that there are no changes to current regulations for anyone other than gun hunters in regard to antlerless quotas on public lands? Just by stroke of pure luck this happened? C'mon, I know you weren't born yesterday.
wilmer thrun wrote:Dan is an anti (as well as non) bowhunter so he always has a beef with bowhunters. The recommendation reads as follows:
“Restrict the days of hunting with allowable harvest on public lands – public land is defined as any property with public access. Let the DNR decide the days. Bow hunting and muzzleloader season will remain unchanged. Youth will be exempt from this.”
Since the public’s objection was overharvest of antlerless deer by FIREAMRS hunters during the many special FIREARMS antlerless hunts, the team did the right thing addressing the concerns of the public rather than inventing a non-issues to address. The public was vocal in that the many antlerless FIREARMS hunts drove people to public land for antlerless deer which in turn was over hunted and over harvested during FIREARMS hunts especially land owners that protected their own lands from antlerless harvest with FIREARMS so they were going to public lands for antlerless deer during FIREAMS antlerless hunts and saving the deer on their private land until the 9 day FIRARMS deer hunt. The documents speaks specifically to this when it says:
“During the Town Hall Meetings, we heard many comments about private landowners killing antlerless deer on public lands but not on their own land.”
The lions share of antlerless harvest comes from FIREARMS hunters, not bowhunters or ML hunters or youth hunters. When the many special antlerless FIREARMS hunts took place, they were not bowhunts, they were not ML hunts, they were not youth hunts. The public gets this even if Dan does not.
As such, addressing the concerns of antlerless FIREARMS hunts was the focus of the committee. They agreed that the preferred methods was to limit the number of days that antlerless harvests could take place on public lands. They agreed that if the DNR were to hold an antlerless FIREARMS hunt that it would only take place on private lands. This would protect public lands from over harvest thus addressing the concerns of hunters. I contend this will backfire when public land hunters object to only the private land owners getting a special hunt leaving public only hunters without days or places to hunt.
This was not some bowhunter scheme to screw over somebody else (unless you’re an anti-bowhunter like Dan and want to invent controversy were none exists)
Dan Salmon wrote:When the quota language changes to a seasonal quota (Sept - Jan), no matter the weapon or season, a specific number of antlerless tags filled for the entire season (Sept - Jan.) to the quota point, then it is buck only the remainder of the time be it the first week of October or the quota is never reached, then I'll believe it.
If there is going to be a quota, then it should apply to all and apply equally.
If the resource is so fragile that killing too many antlerless deer is the problem, then there shouldn't be an issue with changing this language.
If that isn't the problem, and it's a game hog problem, then there is a better way of fixing it than putting quotas on those that aren't game hogs and just want to hunt deer.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests