|
Post by js2397 on May 19, 2009 8:44:26 GMT -5
[ I don't want to come across the wrong way, but your opposed only because you like "seeing" deer at the check station? Your Kidding right? That is part of it but I also think we need to be seen as hunters. Where I live there are a lot of deer checked in and the road the check station is on receives a decent amount of traffic. I think by going to Telecheck less people see what we do and hunting becomes more of a secert society. I would think this might cause the nonhunters to forget about hunting and not care what type of laws are passed against hunting or guns.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on May 18, 2009 14:14:46 GMT -5
I am against it because I like seeing all the deer when I drive by the check station. I am afraid that if telecheck goes through we will no longer be seen. Now in a lot of communities you can see the hunters and the deer they have killed. If you don't see them than maybe you don't think about them. When it comes time for gun control or a debate over hunting right all the nonhunters will think hunting has gone away and there is no need to support hunters anymore.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 13, 2009 8:42:18 GMT -5
During the past seven seasons the OBR has been in effect. The average change in the buck harvest over that time period is 0.77% increase per year. The Biggest jump was a 10.5% increase from 2000 to 2004. In the seven years prior to the OBR the average change in buck harvest was 0.57% decrease per year. The biggest jump was a 10.1% decrease from 1996 to 1997. The average harvest during the OBR is 50465 and preOBR was 45893. This is a difference of 9.96%. I have my doubts about the OBR saving any deer but I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 10, 2009 7:24:52 GMT -5
You can use a 30-30 or30-06 for anything in the state except deer, turkey, and migratory birds. So you can use them to hunt hogs, squirrels, or even quail.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 10, 2009 6:28:02 GMT -5
I still can never see the argument against free enterprise. I know there are many worse things than high fenced hunting and they never seem to come under attack here. I know for a fact that alcohol, tobacco, fast food, and porn ruin many more lives than high fenced hunting.
This is kind of like the antigun argument; people have been killed by guns so outlaw guns.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 7, 2009 8:08:39 GMT -5
The best thing that can happen is to severely punish anyone breaking the law. There is no need to over regulate and punish the ones who do things the right way. We have a tendency in this country once someone breaks a law to say everyone in that same situation will break the law. Make the punishment worse and fewer people will commit the crime.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Mar 31, 2009 14:06:00 GMT -5
IC 14-22-1-1 Wild animals property of the people; department to protect and manage resources Sec. 1. (a) All wild animals, except those that are: (1) legally owned or being held in captivity under a license or permit as required by this article; or (2) otherwise excepted in this article; are the property of the people of Indiana. (b) The department shall protect and properly manage the fish and wildlife resources of Indiana. As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.15.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Mar 31, 2009 7:19:44 GMT -5
Mr. Bacon will be representing deer hunters on the committee. I suggest you send all your comments to him.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Mar 19, 2009 10:15:28 GMT -5
It is an alternative to HB 1585. This was a bill that was introduced to reduce deer herds in certain counties. The legislature has tried to step in and take the authority to manage the deer herd out of the hands of the DNR. It is up to us as game managers to be proactive and offer some viable alternatives to the bill that was introduced by Rep. Friend.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Mar 18, 2009 12:09:16 GMT -5
They could use the money to purchase or lease land.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Mar 18, 2009 9:41:41 GMT -5
This is a management issue because those with LL are more likely to take additional does.
In urban zones hunters are allowed an additional buck and three additional does. It seems that a good number of hunters hold out to get a second buck and don't always worry about taking additional does. If they had to take a doe before they took the second buck more does would be killed.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Mar 18, 2009 6:57:54 GMT -5
I think they could also add a ten dollar annual fee to license plates and insurance. This money could only be used for land aquisition.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Mar 13, 2009 13:48:31 GMT -5
723
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Mar 13, 2009 8:01:42 GMT -5
First we need a better way to estimate the deer herd. If we then determine we need to increase harvest there are several ways to help.
1. Allow crossbows all or at least most of the archery season.
2. Have an October antlerless only muzzleloader season.
3. Bring back the Lifetime License. Even if it is expensive people will buy it and kill more deer. The convenience of having the license makes it easier to take any deer you see.
4. Give landowners incentives to open their land to public hunting. I know there are several states; I think Kentucky is one of them, which allow this.
5. They could give tax breaks for donating venison.
6. Earn a second buck in counties that have overpopulation.
7. Make the second buck in the urban zones an Earn a buck.
8. Move firearms and muzzleloader season up at least one week. The better weather would allow more people to get out. Once people take their buck they get out and shoot does.
9. Make NR antlerless tags the same price as resident tags.
10. They could make a fee to apply for the special hunts to help with land acquisition. They could also add an extra tax on all sporting goods equipment for the same reason.
|
|
|
baiting
Mar 9, 2009 10:25:17 GMT -5
Post by js2397 on Mar 9, 2009 10:25:17 GMT -5
How about this for clarification of baiting?
"bait" means to place, expose, deposit, distribute, or scatter grain, salt, or other feed to lure, attract, or entice a wild animal to an area where a person may take the wild animal.
This seems even more vague than before.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Mar 9, 2009 8:29:10 GMT -5
I'll join. Hopefully I will be able to do better this year than I did last year.
GOTCHA IN..
GOOD LUCK
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Mar 5, 2009 10:41:39 GMT -5
Sounds good. The earn a first buck is tough. I have heard stories where groups of hunters drive public ground and shoot whatever they see so they can go back to their private ground and takee their buck.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Mar 4, 2009 11:26:46 GMT -5
Ask the people of Wisconsin how the Earn a Buck system works.
Here is what I think might work.
1. Bring back the lifetime license
2. Allow crossbows early
3. In any county that allows you to take 4 or more does you could earn a county specific buck tag if you took at least four does
4. You could place a bounty on does
The main thing is you have to get people in the woods and give them a reason to shoot a doe.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Feb 26, 2009 9:43:05 GMT -5
Arcery, Firearms, and Muzzleloader
You could buy all three and only take one buck. Luckily all but the firearms tag is either sex so you could use them even of you killed your buck.
|
|
|
baiting
Feb 20, 2009 9:16:44 GMT -5
Post by js2397 on Feb 20, 2009 9:16:44 GMT -5
Thanks.
|
|