Re: Potential 3 point Rule -- United Hunters of Florida (UHF)

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

07/14/25 9:09:02pm [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 04/26/07 11:23:20am
Author: Jim ((Excellent Points made by all))
Subject: Re: Potential 3 point Rule
In reply to: AlanK 's message, "Re: Potential 3 point Rule" on 04/25/07 6:02:18pm

To begin with I want to Thank each of you for getting involved enough to give us your take on the issue and I certainly will take your concerns to the table with me at these meetings. The responses seem mimick the responses of the shareholders sitting on this team.

Here is what I believe is going on.

1. First these areas are PROPOSED 3pt or better areas.
2. They were chosen because of the fact they are closed areas, have check stations and there is harvest data present for these areas according to the FWC. This will make it easier to gather data when looking for results of the change.
3. Habitat management is also included in the Whitetail Management Plan. It does not include planting food plots or high protein food supplements, in fact they say they have enough of a hard time trying to get permits and get cooperation for burning and roller chopping as it is.
4. The FWC is also looking at balancing the deer populations in areas where it is skewed, but that might not be on top of the list. They realize they will need to take some does in some of the areas and protect them in others.
5. The FWC is proposing to break the state up into Deer Management Units which are defined as...
a. Deer Management Units (DMU) can be defined as descreet geographical areas containing deer populations with similar demographics.
b. Vegetative communities, land use and sociological features within each DMU may also be similar.
Note: The Deer Management Unit Action Team, is a team that consist of biologists, law enforcement and a GIS-expert.
6. DMU's should allow the FWC the ability to adjust rules, procedures on a finer level to without affecting other areas that may not be experiencing the same issues. ie...Crop depredatation, poaching, or disease control.

I believe they will need to take a look at doe week on private lands that border WMA's or DMU's in order to control doe numbers. That should make a few folks upset.

We will never see a full QDM program on public land.

Without more Law Enforcement a Tag system won't work for unethical hunters will still do as they please. Making a mandatory check-in rule will help. Surveying the hunters after the season to see what they got doesn't provide very good statistics.

More later...
Jim

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Potential 3 point Rule -- Wayne Davis, 04/26/07 11:33:58am

Re: Potential 3 point Rule -- Jim, 04/27/07 2:06:01pm

Re: Potential 3 point Rule -- Markm, 05/ 1/07 1:00:01pm