Web FeedsArchers took it in the shorts IMO
| Friday, September 18, 2009 : 11:03 am | views: 442 |
|
From: Opie
In channel: Outdoors |
none |
I think that archers and black powder hunters were singled out. The two forms of hunting aren't the most efficient but it is obvious that neither are the "FOUR" rifle seasons that go on every year.
Had I been at the table, I would have asked that the land owners bring something to the table other than "their desire for a change"
How about a walk in access program?
The entire Ohio creek valley is full of elk this summer, elk that have never left 100's of them. Those are the elk the Land owners are complaining about, elk that are harbored on their own property. Let the hunters in and take the elk that are a problem out. Increasing the number of hunters to push the elk out of the hills and onto these private game refuses is a dumb idea.
IMO The only reason they didn't bring that particular program to the table was for the fact they thought the wildlife commission would side with them, making their landowner vouchers worth 1000's of dollars in a Limited draw only situation. When they "realized it was doomed from the get go" they took what they could from the general hunting public and gave nothing in return. Ranchers and property owners that I know, have never been able to sell all of their land owner vouchers. Making the late "private lands only" longer season will only make them worth more money and they will again go unsold.
In the end I think it was about money, and had nothing to do with trying to fix the problem
Glad to hear the commission compromised but I think the general public got compromised out of some really good hunting opportunities.
a compromise is a compromise and the general hunting public had to give something. personally, I'm stoked that the early seasons will see the cuts. we'll have some seriously quality archery and black powder hunts in a couple years. no more dodging other hunters being the name of the game for those who don't have horses and, therefore, efficient access to the wilderness.
word on the street is that some sort of access program like you speak of, Opie, is in the works, where the a hunt coordinator would work with landowners to get hunters onto their property, driving those animals back to public lands. I'll believe it when I see it. If those landowners had allowed that access all this time, instead of trying to make a profit through trespass fees, we wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.
But what vouchers are you talking about? landowners don't currently collect vouchers for elk in the northern units. they do for deer, but I think the vast majority — if not all — of those are either sold or used. tales of $10,000 voucher sales — when the deer hunting was still good — were not uncommon, even as far back as 2005.
I think the system enacted is as good as anybody could have asked for to please the most people. after all, isn't that what good policy should do?
"But what vouchers are you talking about? landowners don't currently collect vouchers for elk in the northern units."
The land owners I know in the southern two units do, I had assumed the northern owners did as well (why wouldn't they?)
One owner I know gets 20+ cow permits and i don't know how many buck deer tags every year based on the amount of land he has and what the division estimates his damages/losses are.
He can't give them away I don't know if they are called vochures or if they are permits. I have told him trying to recoop his losses or even profit from the public through the selling of the tags will never work for him. And it hasn't he still can't give them away and is bitter about it.
The walk in program works in other states and units,I don't know why it doesn't here other than greed.
I think going to a draw only for archery and black powder was a good thing. The loss of the tags for those two season was too much of a concession IMO, allowing those who where unsuccessful in those two season to turn in their unfilled tag for a rifle tag would have been a better solution and done the same thing essentially. which was suggested at the one work session I was at, but never given another thought as far as I know.
Again I am happy they didn't implement a total draw only system, I still think the public gave to much and the land owners still have yet to give much if anything.
Landowners can only receive vouchers in entirely "limited" units; that's why they do in the southern units for elk but not in the north, also why landowners do receive vouchers statewide for deer, because they're limited statewide.
I definitely believe there are landowners in the southern units who can't get rid of their elk vouchers. I know three guys who put in first choice for bulls in 66 this year; all three drew. That says there's still enough opportunity down there that keeps down the value of a voucher.
Could the ranchers have given more in the north? Sure, but it doesn't surprise me that they didn't. They're welfare queens. The grain to finish their cows is heavily subsidized; they receive millions of dollars of public money to not sell their land for development; their cows graze public lands all summer long; they receive vouchers for keeping deer habitat deer habitat; and they get game damage money on top of that. I've never heard of a welfare queen say she could get by on less than she actually does. Have you?