Post by Russ Koon on Feb 13, 2007 16:02:46 GMT -5
This is a subject that has bothered me a little bit several times over the years.
I have always tried to stay within the law and have succeeded almost all the time, with only a couple of minor mistakes. I try to hunt with people who do likewise, to the extent that I know about their activities. I expect the majority of us here do the same.
However, I can't think of a time when anyone in my circle of hunting friends has turned down the opportunity to go hunting for small game because they already had the possession limit for that species in the freezer. Nor have I ever heard anyone say, "Well these two squirrels are all I can shoot this morning, because I still have eight in the freezer. Have to fry some up so I can go again."
In my experience, the possession limits are almost universally ignored. I can't understand why the government cares whether I eat squirrel every day from mid-August on through January, then keep the possession limit of ten to have on occasion until next August, as I could do and stay legal, or whether I eat my squirrels at the time of my choosing through the year.
I can fully understand and agree with a daily kill limit, to prevent over-killing by game hogs. But to limit your possession just seems like something that's none of the government's business and something that will do little or nothing to limit your kill numbers. After all, it's perfectly legal to give excess ones away to friends, family, or others you know who would enjoy a squirrel pot pie or some squirel and dumplings. That would take them out of your possession as well as eating them yourself, for those who like hunting them more than they like eating them.
Then there's the matter of just what is a squirrel in your possession? If you make a big pot of squirrel stew with four squirrels in it, and freeze the unused portion from one dinner to have some other time, might you end up with, say 2.6 squirrels still in the freezer?
I've also never heard of the CO's raiding anyone's freezer for evidence of too many squirrels or bunnies in possession. Certainly have heard of it in relation to deer and I can see how that might be an important enforcement aid, even if donated deer and roadkills do probably look almost the same as legally killed and poached ones once they're all wrapped and frozen.
My point is, if the regulation is pretty much unusable for enforcement, is normally ignored by otherwise law-abiding hunters, and only serves as a mild irritant to the few hunters who are bothered by the hindrance on their activities to stay legal, then maybe it's high time to consider lifting it and saving the ink it takes it to write it in the regulation pamphlet.
Anyone agree? Disagree?
I have always tried to stay within the law and have succeeded almost all the time, with only a couple of minor mistakes. I try to hunt with people who do likewise, to the extent that I know about their activities. I expect the majority of us here do the same.
However, I can't think of a time when anyone in my circle of hunting friends has turned down the opportunity to go hunting for small game because they already had the possession limit for that species in the freezer. Nor have I ever heard anyone say, "Well these two squirrels are all I can shoot this morning, because I still have eight in the freezer. Have to fry some up so I can go again."
In my experience, the possession limits are almost universally ignored. I can't understand why the government cares whether I eat squirrel every day from mid-August on through January, then keep the possession limit of ten to have on occasion until next August, as I could do and stay legal, or whether I eat my squirrels at the time of my choosing through the year.
I can fully understand and agree with a daily kill limit, to prevent over-killing by game hogs. But to limit your possession just seems like something that's none of the government's business and something that will do little or nothing to limit your kill numbers. After all, it's perfectly legal to give excess ones away to friends, family, or others you know who would enjoy a squirrel pot pie or some squirel and dumplings. That would take them out of your possession as well as eating them yourself, for those who like hunting them more than they like eating them.
Then there's the matter of just what is a squirrel in your possession? If you make a big pot of squirrel stew with four squirrels in it, and freeze the unused portion from one dinner to have some other time, might you end up with, say 2.6 squirrels still in the freezer?
I've also never heard of the CO's raiding anyone's freezer for evidence of too many squirrels or bunnies in possession. Certainly have heard of it in relation to deer and I can see how that might be an important enforcement aid, even if donated deer and roadkills do probably look almost the same as legally killed and poached ones once they're all wrapped and frozen.
My point is, if the regulation is pretty much unusable for enforcement, is normally ignored by otherwise law-abiding hunters, and only serves as a mild irritant to the few hunters who are bothered by the hindrance on their activities to stay legal, then maybe it's high time to consider lifting it and saving the ink it takes it to write it in the regulation pamphlet.
Anyone agree? Disagree?
?
