|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,700
THE Octopus
|
|
THE Octopus
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,700 |
WMA's are public land. If a person is happy shooting a spike, then they should shoot it. Some people only get a weekend or two to hunt. They don't have time to "Trophy Hunt". Not everyone cares for trophy hunting. Some want to shoot what they see. There are still big bucks out there. If you want to shoot larger deer quit being lazy and hunt harder. Dont blame your lack of success on the man that shot a spike. Public land is hunted very hard but the people that put in their time kill big deer. I reread my post and I didn't see anything in it about me blaming my lack of success on anything. I killed 2 very nice 8 points this year both were on public land. One came from here and one from mo. I don't know one person that would shoot a 4 pointer over an 8 pointer, and if they say they would there lying. All I am saying is its only common sense that if u let the small ones walk there gonna get bigger. I know u can't talk sense into some folks especially the ones with the brown its down mentality but when that generation dies off we should be able to have what other states have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,494
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,494 |
The other thing a tag system with telecheck would be good for is collecting more accurate data on our deer. The current system is voluntary and im sure even all the honest hunters don't submit their data How is a tag system not voluntary? A person still has to take the paperwork out of their wallet, afix it to the animal and call it in. Would a poacher do that? If you have to send the tags back in at the end of the season before new tags are issued, what would keep the poacher from just not using the tags or not use all of the tags and send the ones they did not use back in even though they killed more than they were supposed to? The tags also would only account for the deer reported and not for shot and unrecovered, killed by predators, killed by cars, die of old age, etc. A management tag system is a good idea when there is a defined controllable area where the amount of pressure, land area and harvest information can be obtained, such as State WMA or other individual tracks of land that someone wants to manage for herd density, buck:doe ratio, age structure, antler size etc (this occurs now). Micro-management of the resource should done at a site specific location under the broad regulations established by the State (like it is now). That is not to say that studies of local areas should not be done to see what is happening or what can happen, such as Lowndes and Barbour County WMAs, but using that information across a broad spectrum of different properties would not be good science or management.
"After all, it is not the killing that brings satisfaction; it is the contest of skill and cunning. The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport." Dr. Saxton Pope
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 502
4 point
|
|
4 point
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 502 |
The other thing a tag system with telecheck would be good for is collecting more accurate data on our deer. The current system is voluntary and im sure even all the honest hunters don't submit their data How is a tag system not voluntary? A person still has to take the paperwork out of their wallet, afix it to the animal and call it in. Would a poacher do that? If you have to send the tags back in at the end of the season before new tags are issued, what would keep the poacher from just not using the tags or not use all of the tags and send the ones they did not use back in even though they killed more than they were supposed to? The tags also would only account for the deer reported and not for shot and unrecovered, killed by predators, killed by cars, die of old age, etc. A management tag system is a good idea when there is a defined controllable area where the amount of pressure, land area and harvest information can be obtained, such as State WMA or other individual tracks of land that someone wants to manage for herd density, buck:doe ratio, age structure, antler size etc (this occurs now). Micro-management of the resource should done at a site specific location under the broad regulations established by the State (like it is now). That is not to say that studies of local areas should not be done to see what is happening or what can happen, such as Lowndes and Barbour County WMAs, but using that information across a broad spectrum of different properties would not be good science or management. just curious how implementing the info gathered from these studies on a statewide level would not be good science or mgmt - please explain
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,494
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,494 |
The other thing a tag system with telecheck would be good for is collecting more accurate data on our deer. The current system is voluntary and im sure even all the honest hunters don't submit their data How is a tag system not voluntary? A person still has to take the paperwork out of their wallet, afix it to the animal and call it in. Would a poacher do that? If you have to send the tags back in at the end of the season before new tags are issued, what would keep the poacher from just not using the tags or not use all of the tags and send the ones they did not use back in even though they killed more than they were supposed to? The tags also would only account for the deer reported and not for shot and unrecovered, killed by predators, killed by cars, die of old age, etc. A management tag system is a good idea when there is a defined controllable area where the amount of pressure, land area and harvest information can be obtained, such as State WMA or other individual tracks of land that someone wants to manage for herd density, buck:doe ratio, age structure, antler size etc (this occurs now). Micro-management of the resource should done at a site specific location under the broad regulations established by the State (like it is now). That is not to say that studies of local areas should not be done to see what is happening or what can happen, such as Lowndes and Barbour County WMAs, but using that information across a broad spectrum of different properties would not be good science or management. just curious how implementing the info gathered from these studies on a statewide level would not be good science or mgmt - please explain Too many variables and assumptions, it's kind of like the NOAA weather forecaster being able to forecast what will happen at your house at any point in time when he is sampling the entire country. However, you can tell what the weather is doing at your house when you are there observing the current conditions and using previous history for that location (the same goes for deer manegement from the State level or from the local land/leaseholder level).
"After all, it is not the killing that brings satisfaction; it is the contest of skill and cunning. The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport." Dr. Saxton Pope
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 18,299 Likes: 71
Old Mossy Horns
|
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 18,299 Likes: 71 |
The current system is voluntary and im sure even all the honest hunters don't submit their data Are we supposed to?
|
|
|
|
|
