150 Class
Well-Known Member
Link to read.
[ QUOTE ]
“That in any county with 500 or more antlerless permits available, the first (opening) day of each anydeer season shall be designated as antlerless only”
[/ QUOTE ]
If we were to support the 1st day doe only idea, I would say it does not apply to any county that sold out of the antlerless tags last year, regardless of how many they are allocating this year. There are many counties with allocations of over 1,000 each that sell out every year. They are doing their part. If the DNR wants those counties to take more does, all that they need to do is allocate more.
When we look at this;
1. All of the proposals only apply to a portion of the state (less than 1/3). Many counties may not have antlerless tags this year. Many sell out. And there are several that although they did not sell out but they were close to selling out and should not be a part of this debate.
2. Good luck getting anything to pass that has a negative impact on revenue. Solution, charge more for the resident hunting license. Charge more for all state wide either sex tags. Charge landowners for their extra landowner either sex tags the same price as all statewide tags but give them the same discount as we do today for their antlerless, if available. This should make it easier to sell the antlerless for less or to give them away in the areas that did not sell out and we can treat this as a management issue and quit treating it as a money issue (your 1st antlerless this year will be $20. Your second will be $10. Starting on October 1st, if there are any unsold antlerless tags, they may be purchased 1st come 1st served. If purchasing 3 or more tags for counties that sold out last year, those additional tags will be sold for $10 each in that county. If purchasing 3 or more tags for counties that did not sell out last year, those additional tags will be free).
3. In part of the state, NRs will be shooting does with extra doe tags that they must purchase. This is at the expense of taking the doe tag recreation opportunity away from the resident. That makes no sense to me. Oh, I guess it does. Revenue! Should not apply to any county that does not offer antlerless tags to the residents but should to all of the others.
4. Access is a problem. To offer a solution to this problem is not an easy one.
5. Education is another problem. People do not understand that there are issues needing addressed or the people do not understand the issues that they are aware of. How do we force us to get educated about the issues?
6. The average Joe hunter does not understand. But, why should it be Joe’s responsibility to understand or solve the problem? The Farm Bureau thinks there is a problem. The insurance lobby thinks there is a problem. They think Joe is responsible for resolving their issue but at Joes expense and with no help from them. How about befriending Joe instead of blaming him and helping him to understand the issue? How about helping to pay for Joes expense of taking care of your problem (charge $1 per insured car to go into a fund to help pay for HUSH or to help lower the cost of the antelerless tags).
7. It seems to be more of a special interest or political issue than a management issue.
8. More later!
[ QUOTE ]
“That in any county with 500 or more antlerless permits available, the first (opening) day of each anydeer season shall be designated as antlerless only”
[/ QUOTE ]
If we were to support the 1st day doe only idea, I would say it does not apply to any county that sold out of the antlerless tags last year, regardless of how many they are allocating this year. There are many counties with allocations of over 1,000 each that sell out every year. They are doing their part. If the DNR wants those counties to take more does, all that they need to do is allocate more.
When we look at this;
1. All of the proposals only apply to a portion of the state (less than 1/3). Many counties may not have antlerless tags this year. Many sell out. And there are several that although they did not sell out but they were close to selling out and should not be a part of this debate.
2. Good luck getting anything to pass that has a negative impact on revenue. Solution, charge more for the resident hunting license. Charge more for all state wide either sex tags. Charge landowners for their extra landowner either sex tags the same price as all statewide tags but give them the same discount as we do today for their antlerless, if available. This should make it easier to sell the antlerless for less or to give them away in the areas that did not sell out and we can treat this as a management issue and quit treating it as a money issue (your 1st antlerless this year will be $20. Your second will be $10. Starting on October 1st, if there are any unsold antlerless tags, they may be purchased 1st come 1st served. If purchasing 3 or more tags for counties that sold out last year, those additional tags will be sold for $10 each in that county. If purchasing 3 or more tags for counties that did not sell out last year, those additional tags will be free).
3. In part of the state, NRs will be shooting does with extra doe tags that they must purchase. This is at the expense of taking the doe tag recreation opportunity away from the resident. That makes no sense to me. Oh, I guess it does. Revenue! Should not apply to any county that does not offer antlerless tags to the residents but should to all of the others.
4. Access is a problem. To offer a solution to this problem is not an easy one.
5. Education is another problem. People do not understand that there are issues needing addressed or the people do not understand the issues that they are aware of. How do we force us to get educated about the issues?
6. The average Joe hunter does not understand. But, why should it be Joe’s responsibility to understand or solve the problem? The Farm Bureau thinks there is a problem. The insurance lobby thinks there is a problem. They think Joe is responsible for resolving their issue but at Joes expense and with no help from them. How about befriending Joe instead of blaming him and helping him to understand the issue? How about helping to pay for Joes expense of taking care of your problem (charge $1 per insured car to go into a fund to help pay for HUSH or to help lower the cost of the antelerless tags).
7. It seems to be more of a special interest or political issue than a management issue.
8. More later!
