Originally Posted by
fe2manz
In fact, until the safety and operations committee nixed bow hunting and only narrowly passed ANY attempt to do shotgun hunting, most of the biologists thought the plan might have legs---but not now--and why waste the time so that 14 hunters can hunt---it works out to about $1200-1300/deer for a hunting program assuming everyone gets 2 deer.
THOSE ARE NOT NUMBERS I CAME UP WITH--THEY ARE WHAT THE BOARD IS REVIEWING
That would be an awful expensive foot in the door--and the money could be spent better elsewhere. It should be proposed that areas with no public access--and there are about 2 dozen of them that would be huntable--be used as part of a recreational hunting program and that the numbers hunters take be looked at to see if management is feasible. Then the management goals and objectives aren't directly linked to any particular form of removal. Instead the program states that the target numbers of hundred and hundreds are the goal and then the plan asks if hunting will achieve them. It was done this way so that management would be the over-arching message so as to deflect a lot of criticism, but all it did was cripple the plan.
I see, good job of explaining your reasons. Sounded as if you werre against hunting not the program presented.
I still say bring on a bounty after the politicians have done their worst. I say the same for the wolf problem else where.
Why shouldn't the hunter get a litle something for doing the hard part? Only reason I can think of is it just never crossed his or her mind. Bout time it does.