Re: Are you in favor of limiting harvest numbers? -- 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):

04/24/24 9:04:37am [ 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: 03/29/07 9:59:58pm
Author: Jim
Subject: Re: Are you in favor of limiting harvest numbers?
In reply to: AlanK 's message, "Re: Are you in favor of limiting harvest numbers?" on 03/29/07 11:36:36am

>>1. How do you feel on limiting harvest numbers
>>to...say....2 bucks a year?
>An arbitrary number for ALL locations
>doesn't seem to be good Management. If hunters would
>take on the responsibility to know their hunting area,
>be it public or private, they should be able to be
>good manangers on their own.
That is true..but they are trying to find a starting point. Maybe it will be 3 who knows, but there are restrictions coming. There are many hunters out there that know the areas, but they don't have anything to do with managing the game or habitat. They may decide not to take that spike and let him walk until next year or they may even have a personal horn rule of their own. Problem is and it's been that way for a long time...Why let it walk when the next guy is just going to shoot it!
>>2. How about going to a tagging system, which will be
>>costly because every Mgmt Area will have to have a
>>check station and attendants...
>I'm against something like this. This
>would cost millions per year if implemented state wide
>that go far beyond the WMA Field Staff. You would
>have to build the infrastructure at the state level to
>handle the administration of the tagging system
>itself. More government regulation is not the answer.
> Most hunters, especially on private land will tend
>NOT to over-harvest their land...
I tend to agree with you on the first part, the second part is partially true unless they find out their losing their lease and then I've see places that do the "if it brown it's down" thing. I hate that term!
>>
>>3. What do we do about the National Forests?
>Depends on the specific WMA. I feel
>there could be a lot better management on some for
>sure. Again as I replied to Tom, I meant about being able to close them off and ensure deer were tagged and checked in. It will be nearly impossible without spending millions that they don't have.
>>
>>4. Is the hunting season too long??
>NO! If anything they are not long
>enough! Honestly, I would like to see more
>consistency to the seasons on public land. Some WMAs
>have a "normal" season, some have a "painfully short"
>season! After the first 9 days, most of the "stupid"
>deer are gone anyway and for the most part, the
>dedicated, knowledgeable hunter will have more success
>as the season progresses. (From a still hunt
>perspective anyway!) Truthfully I believe this is the way they have been trying to limit the harvest on lands with less deer density. Limit the numbers of hunters and lessen the days afield.
>>
>>5. Have bucks been over harvested??
>Once again this is site
>specific...Statewide, I would say NO! It always seems
>that the day after hunting season ends, the deer will
>become visible again! I hunt mainly WMAs and if
>anything, they don't let us harvest enough doe...even
>during archery! I tend to agree with you...Deer density is going to be site specific..I believe there are more bucks than they believe. As for doe harvest, I'll keep my opinion to myself.
>>
>>6. How do you feel about doing away with feeders? Or
>>having to register them to make sure your not just
>>baiting?
>Hunting on private land over/near
>feeders used to be something I was always against.
>Just this past year, I was talking to a buddy who has
>1,000 acres of private hunt land with feeders and corn
>piles. I asked him if he considered this "cheating"
>and he asked me a question that made me rethink my
>position on feeders...."When you go fishing, do you
>use a Bare Hook?"...Hmmmm....He invited me to hunt
>with him and I realized one thing. Just because you
>put out feeders doesn't mean that you are guaranteed
>to take a deer! They still feed on their own schedule
>and just like public land, the key to taking bucks is
>to BE IN THE WOODS WHEN THEY DECIDE TO MOVE!
Understood! Glad to see some of us are still open minded and less resistant to change. I'm pretty set in my ways, but I believe what I see. Lot's of time deer won't even mess with feeders because they aren't used to them and mostly hogs, coons, squirrels and turkeys will eat it when deer walk right by.
>>
>>Get your buddies and lets get some discussion
>>going...These are the kinds of things the FWC is
>>looking at...How is it going to affect you??
>BOTTOM LINE: I feel that the hunter
>is the one responsilbe to hunt and harvest in a
>responsible manner. Government oversight and
>regulation will NOT make an irresponsible hunter
>responsible and if they don't obey the rules now,
>adding more rules will not change that! Just my 2
>cents worth! - ALAN

Alan and Tom...Thanks for taking the time to answer up and give me your opinions..get your buddies to open us and start discussing these things, because I'm telling you things are changing. Tom you know me and I wouldn't pull your leg on stuff like this.

Jim

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

Replies:

Re: Are you in favor of limiting harvest numbers? -- markm, 04/ 8/07 8:08:45am