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 5:08:12am [ 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 11:01:41pm
Author: Jim
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

Alan, Forgive me for the format of my response, but I don't want to miss any of your questions or comments.

>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?
I certainly can't speak for the FWC, but I believe they were hoping to make the system fair for everyone using it. They have received enough complaints over the years about the people who are gaming the system that they figured they'd put together a group and see what they could do about it. My take on the subject is they aren't letting the stakeholders come up with ideas and discuss them, they are working to some agenda we don't know about. We (UHF) have attended the last two meetings and haven't been allowed to speak. We are just public visitors and have no input, but can comment at the end of the meeting on what took place, but it is not taken as input. BUT the FWC has a person sitting as a stakeholder and then two others including Eddie White that get to give their input as if they were stakeholders. It's crazy. They tell them they are under the sunshine law so they can't speak to each other on the subject between meetings even. I haven't figured out why they are and the Whitetail Mgmt Team isn't.

>
>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! ;)
Correct, that is the way I thought it was supposed to be. LMAO on the "advanced notice"!

>
>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.
This IS the problem in a nut shell!

>
>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.
Your correct Newbies are not in the Preference draw. The Phase 1 drawing as proposed (as I understand it)includes Gen Gun, Archery, Muzzleloader, Spring Gobbler and Disabled hunts, of which you will be drawn twice for. Who knows what you'll get if anything. Maybe two gun hunts, 1 gun & spring turkey or maybe 2 archery hunts. I don't like this suggestion. I would rather see everything on it's own especially archery and muzzleloader. As it is right now it either or unless you can find a hunt in Phase 3. I don't want to have to choose between archery and muzzleloader, I want them both and the same goes for Spring turkey, why are they throwing that in the mix? It doesnt appear it will make my odds any better at getting drawn the we have right now.

>
>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.
Your correct it would not stop the gaming 100%, But with 1 deer per hunter per quota hunt, you wouldn't see the same guy with 3 permits for "Primo WMA" go in and take a buck on tag 1 and then turn around and go hunting on tag 2 and 3. He'd only be able to take one deer on tag 1 and tag 2 and 3 would be useless to him. Of course he'd try to trade them for "NotsoPrimo WMA" and go hunt that one. At least two others would be able to get into "Primo WMA". Your idea on 1 deer per hunter per quota hunt period has merit and should be suggested to them. So "Selfish Hunter" would only be able to take 1 deer on any single archery "quota hunt" or "gun hunt". If the hunt wasn't a quota archery or gun hunt then he could still continue to hunt with no further impact on the quota system. Definitely a possibility. Gotta figure out how to inforce it though.

>
>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.
>
Not my preferred reality, but I agree.

>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! :)

Thank God for Ocala having so many permits and being open so long. It supplements a lot of hunters! :O)
>
>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.

Ditto..I've only been hunting it for 15 or so years, but know a few out of the way places.
>
>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.
>
One of the abuser stated that if they made them non-transferrable, he'd just throw away his extras and it would be work it because he just cut the hunting competition down by quite a few hunters! Now that really tells you what kind of person he is! That really chaps my axe!

>-Alan
>
Keep being a thinking and caring hunter and maybe it will rub off on a few others. Thanks for your input!,
Jim

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

Replies:

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