What is the ultimate goal of the FWC in changing the Quota Hunt system? Do they have a goal or do they just perceive the system as being broken and want to make a change just for the sake of changing?
In my opinion, the Quota Hunt system is supposed to give everyone a fair and "random chance" at obtaining some of the publicly preferred hunts and to control the amount of people in the woods at any given time....basically a lottery. I would hope that one other reason is to prevent a mass slaughter and give the deer a little “advanced notice” that all hell is fixin’ to break loose! ;)
The only way you increase your "odds" of obtaining a particular hunt is to buy more Mgt. Stamps under multiple names. This, in and of itself, is unfair as some folks make enough money and have enough "names" to apply for multiple hunts or to apply multiple times for the same "premium" hunts...others may not be as fortunate and can only afford to buy one stamp and apply once for any given hunt. This, to me is a problem.
So...what do we do?
Preferred Draw
This is a good start but it only works if you apply for a single hunt. If you have a 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice for your Phase 1 hunt and you draw one of them, you won't be in the preferred draw next year and you cannot apply for Phase 2 permits (not that any of the premium hunts are available in P2). Even if you apply for only 1 hunt in Phase 1 and don't get it this year, there is no guarantee you will get it next year as the preferred draw is still random. Some folks can go years without getting a premium hunt even if they play by all of the rules….doesn’t sound too fair to me either. Also, the Preferred Draw should apply to “new” applicants also. If this is your first time applying for a quota hunt, you should be in the preferred draw…I don’t think that is true today.
One Deer / Hunt
If the hunter applied for multiple hunts for multiple WMAs how would this work? He/She could still buy multiple Mgt. Stamps and apply for multiple WMA hunts and could still abuse the system. They could perceivably take one deer here and another there and another there and so on...again, not fair. This rule would have to apply for the entire quota period across all WMAs…basically making it One Dear / Hunter / Quota Hunting Period.
Non Transferable Permits
As much as I hate to admit it, this would be about as close to “fair” as we could get. This would eliminate “multiple application” issues and a hunter could not bounce around from place to place or stock up on the most desirable hunts. One Hunter, One Chance….the name on the permit must match the name on the license and must match your driver’s license. Everyone would be on a level playing field and you would have just as good of a chance at a particular hunt as I would….a true lottery. With that said, I would recommend that the number of permits being issued should be increased by 10 to 20% as there will be a lot of hunters that will be “no-shows” –or- add more hunts with fewer people. This will allow more people to apply and be drawn for these premium hunts. This also would eliminate the need for a Preferred Draw as it would be a truly random process.
The Non Transferable Permit (NTP)would end up hurting me in that I hunt on only 2 WMAs (Lk. George and Ocala Lk Delancy/Hopkin’s Prairie)….Lk. George has a split General Gun 1st 9 days and I usually buy 2 Mgt Stamps so I can apply for both hunts. If I’m lucky, which I haven’t been for many years now, I can hunt Lk. George the entire 1st 9 days. I ALWAYS take that week off from work. Ocala always has permits available in Phase 3 so that is my back up plan. I would gladly give this up for the sake of making it a fairer system. I only do it because it’s allowed and I love hunting Lk. George. My only problem with the NTP is that I would have to make a choice of hunting part of the 1st 9 days in Lk. George or the entire 1st 9 days in Ocala as I would only be able to apply for one of them. I still have the bow hunt and muzzy hunt in Lk George and most of the time, by the start of General Gun, I’ve already taken a couple of deer so the pressure is off! :)
Honestly, to me, I don’t care one way or the other because I’ve been hunting Ocala since I was 8 years old (1970 - back when even Hopkin’s Prairie was dog hunt) and although it is getting more crowded and more dangerous to hunt there, I know places where I can get away from the crowd.
With all of that said, I still don't know what is the best solution...I'm sure there are many people who abuse the system but there are just as many, if not more, that play by the rules. I don't think there is a simple solution.
-Alan
>As you've probably seen from the thread below and on
>several other Forums, there is a proposal to make the
>quota permits non-transferable.
>
>I for one do not like the idea of non-transferable
>permits, but also don't like the gaming that goes on.
>I believe the Commission has already come up with the
>fix for the problem but has not recognized it yet.
>
>Like Tosohatchee several other WMA's are proposed to
>go to 1 deer per person per quota hunt. Not quota
>permit, but hunt. This stops the guy with 3 first
>guns from coming in taking his limit, and going back
>in with another permit.
>
>I believe this will fix the system on a level that
>would be acceptable to most people. Some gaming will
>still go on, but what's the use except to get the best
>hunts. But at least it will be 1 quota per person per
>quota hunt. You might see the guy at every hunt the
>WMA has but it's better than non-transferable in my
>book.
>
>What do you think? Any suggestions?
>
>Jim
