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):

07/16/25 11:36:19pm [ 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/ 8/07 8:08:45am
Author: markm
Subject: Re: Are you in favor of limiting harvest numbers?
In reply to: Jim 's message, "Re: Are you in favor of limiting harvest numbers?" on 03/29/07 9:59:58pm

>>>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
>

If Hunters can't take the time to discuss where Florida and hunting is going today on an open forum, how can we expect them to govern themselves in the field?

Many hunters are going to be very upset in the coming years, myself included! That is unless the FWC works diligently with the Stakeholders in an honest manner...

My first observation is if the FWC has no IDEA on how many Bucks are in a certain Area, how could they know they're being over harvested?

It wasn't long ago when we were asked HOW to get more hunters into the woods and BUY licenses, will limiting the taking of bucks do this or shortening the season HELP? I don't like what I'm seeing here, nor do I think that the FWC is going to help fix the problem, what ever that may be!

Logic would dictate that a Deer count is in order, Then and only then can you LOGICALLY put any restrictions in place! If the FWC isn't willing to do this then Hunters and the Deer themself are just Pawns in the political arena!

I know that the UHF and Many other Organizations are working very hard to come to some understanding as to what needs to be done here, the FWC holds the ACE though, and if what the Stakeholders are asking for can't be produced then it's Up the creek without a paddle!

These are my thoughts as I watch this play out, I hope all Hunters will join in dicussing these and other issues pertaining to DEER HUNTING in general, not just a select few, the UHF has given an open forum, a Website in hopes of gathering hunters ideas and issues, Yet we're not getting across to enough or maybe they don't care enough to partisapate, either way Jim is Correct, Change is coming for better or Worse it's Our choice!

Mark

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