Re: Alternative Ideas for Quota System Overhaul -- 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):

04/25/24 11:10:05pm [ 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: 08/27/07 8:35:31pm
Author: markm
Subject: Re: Alternative Ideas for Quota System Overhaul
In reply to: AlanK 's message, "Re: Alternative Ideas for Quota System Overhaul" on 08/24/07 9:16:04am

>Jim,
>
>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

All good Points Alan, we're all pretty torn between these points you make... My goal here is to make sure all avenues are ventured before making this leap, there are some bad apples in the bin, just as there are some bad points we need to bring to the table with this Non-transferable system, like you said, we need the FWC to give some flexability to the Number of quotas, due to the No shows, there's no doubt that the numbers will be larger then they are today,(in my area, averaging 35%)! I have atleast two permits offered to me a season, that's over the one or two i get from the system, sometimes i get more then i can use and i make sure someone gets them, this will not happen anymore, that's a lose in hunting to me!

I own my own business I don't have the lucsury of taking off work most times during the season as it gets very busy for me, so i miss out alot of times and i have to give up my permits, again this will not happen and this represents a lose in hunting opputinities for other hunters...

This is only part of what both you and i will lose, how many hunters are in our position? Yes, the system at this time is tanted, but we need to make sure that this new one will not reduce Florida hunters ability to hunt and harvest game, so far that hasn't been convincing to me!

Mark
>
>>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

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

Replies:

Re: Alternative Ideas for Quota System Overhaul -- Jim, 08/27/07 11:01:41pm

Alan, See Casey's thread for a Revised Draft -- Jim, 08/27/07 11:11:52pm