Just a few weeks ago you told of a man that called and told you that he had killed several deer on Oak Mountain and you assured him that he would get to hunt. Isn't that you picking and choosing?

Dead horse, meet stick.

:rolleyes:

So is socialized medicine so I guess we should drop that too.

Just because it has been discussed, doesn't make what is happening right.

Giving the hunting priviledges on a piece of state owned property that the public has shown an interest in hunting to a group that can pick and choose who they want to let hunt is not right. If they needed to kill more deer, they could have more hunts or more hunters per hunt to try to meet their goal while still allowing all residents who are interested to have an equal opportunity to participate.

The continued picking gets old.

I did it, too. I said my piece about the bow hunt and moved on.

The first Advisory Board meeting will be in February. Anyone who doesn't like the park setup should make plans to attend and complain there, too.

Yep, it's his job to "pick and choose" who gets to hunt. Bottom line.....they want deer killed, PERIOD!!! They want hunters that can get the job done. This isn't a recreational hunt folks. It's a herd reduction. The way it was being run before wasn't getting the job done. Damn, folks will bitch about anything.

I don't believe that is 100% true Shaw. If they really just wanted deer killed, sharpshooters would be much more efficient.

I think most of us agree that access to hunting land is one of the biggest challenges our sport faces. Here we moved forward by the state opening state owned land for the public to hunt, only to have that progess taken away and given to a select group to chose who they think "qualifies" to hunt.


Big step backwards in my opinion.

I guess it is just impossible to make some of you happy. The guy you are referring to is a crossbow hunter that was very successful last year. I would be a complete idiot if I didn't pick him for the hunt.

I love folks complaining about something they know NOTHING about. So, far every hunter except one that has passed the proficiency test has been selected. So, that sorta blows the crap out of your "pick and choose" complaint doesn't it! You got anything else to complain about? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

That's exactly the point. Why should you get the authority to pick who hunts on land that is owned by all of us?

Before we had a fair, lottery type system. Now we have you picking who hunts.

Early in the post you said you didn't pick who hunted. Now you say you picked that guy.

Which is it?

Sure.....so is it first come first serve? Why was the one not picked?

Bad breath?

No it wasn't first come first served. If I had had to many folks show up I would have had to rank and select. We have had 93 pass. Not all of them can make all 4 hunts. So, it has worked out where we have the right number of hunters for the job without having to "pick & choose".

jcoffee, I sent you a PM about the reason. I don't want to post it here for obvious reasons.

Nope, he favored you!

I think it becomes a problem when a group that lobbies the gov't takes over a public hunt and requires anyone who wants to participate to join the group.The money you pay to join could be used to go against something you are for or vice versa.
You are just a number to the group.They use this to say "we have x number of members"to generate pull while lobbying.
If it is all about the betterment for OM, then why didn't BHA run it w/o the membership requirement and just let it be known they are the ones running it,and would like you to join.Alot of people would be more inclined to join on their own than it being forced upon them.The way it is now,it looks like a fund raiser for BHA,whether they make a penny from it or not.

Hindsight being what it is.

A solution to this whole issue would have been to drop the price from $50 to $25 without the $6 dollar app fee. Everyone that passed the test and was chosen to hunt would get a complimentary membership to BHA.

New member could have been picked up and people hunting would have paid less.

Everyone would be happy.(almost)

Nope, people would still whine and bitch about it. :rolleyes:

The fee was dropped from $50 to $10 per hunt and they still aren't happy.

Bama,

Just a number to the group! LOL Have you ever attended a BHA event before? Our members bend over backwards to make our events fun, safe, and focused on family. We are all volunteers.

When we were asked to do this by the DCNR, I started doing research on other states that had urban deer control programs. A group from PA was extremely helpful. But, they told me that we would get hammered by lots of folks about the program no matter how it was set up. He also told me that over 90% of the complaints would come from hunters. Damn, he was understating it. So far, we haven't had a single complaint from an anti!

As a matter of fact I was a member of BHA for awhile and was part of the Fayette Co. chapter events.I dropped it when was asked to help work a Sunday shoot at the BJCC,then being told after driving over there and paying to get in that "we have enough folks".That same year during multiround shoots at other chapters,you would see people looking for arrows behind targets.The same folks turned in perfect score cards.Then on the single round shoots they did good to score over 50%.If you complained you were considered "not part of the in crowd".You kinda get fed up with people cheating and noone to back up the rule book.