I guess this goes even further along with Atlas’s & Germ’s threads.

How much should hunter opinions & desires weigh in on states game management policies? I think most guys in this site do what they can to educate themselves about the bigger picture of game management, rather than keep the me, me, me attitude.

However, I frequent a PA site where some REALLY bizarre trains of thought prevail, and ones that DON’T account for the big picture and keeping a balance with deer and habitat. So how much can the general hunter population be trusted to provide valid input?

I think NC does a good job of getting the hunters involved. We have regional meetings where we're encouraged to voice our collective opinions. They take these into consideration....and we've seen some recent regs changes as example.

BUT....do I think "we" know better than the guys who've made it their life's study to know? Hell no.

They allow us to "help". Left to manage our herd......"we'd" be in bad shape. Too much "ME".

While I feel that our wants and needs should certainly be considered, ultimately I have great faith in my state's wildlife agency to do the job I pay them for.

We agree
Hunters are tools for Biologist.

The biggest issue I see is this:


Biologist want hunters to shoot deer, hunters want to see deer. This is where we bump heads IMO.

Here in Wisconsin to much has been turned over to the legislators.

I also agree with Germ above.

I'm not sure about hunters input as a group ,but I do feel land owners ( owners of say over 100 acres) have more to gain or loose buy decisions that are made by those who have no dog in the fight.

A degree in biology does mean you spent 4 years at school , it does not mean that you know whats best, blind faith does not meanwe have to keep our eyes closed.

Not to be argumentative.....but who do you trust, then? Couldn't the same thing be said about doctors (more years in school, though)? Do you trust them more than the guy who has 100 employees?

I know guys who own thousands of acres and they couldn't tell you squat about a deer. Owning land tells me you either inherited it or you bought it. It tells me nothing about your credentials as a deer herd manager.

For the first time I can recall, MO is having meetings asking deer hunters for input. I would say so far they have done a good job as far as management. I'm curious to see what comes of all the "town hall meetings" that they are having before they set up this years regulations and seasons.

In my opinion - most of the hunters in PA aren't even qualified to be carrying the weapons that they're carrying - andpose not only a danger to themselves, but those around them, while they'rerunning amuk in the wilderness trying to kill things.

By logical extension, these people most assuredly have no business having any input in the research/field study/legislation end of things. Leave any and all work requiring expertise - to the trained experts in the field.

If I had my way, we'd see hunting take a step away from being a hobby that seemingly "anyone" can take up - and move in the direction ofgranting licensure to onlyqualified, educated, responsible individuals.

But since this is a money game - that will never happen... so... It is what it is.

Have you ever heard say "believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see"?

My problem is the lemming like following todays Biologist get ,now that they are pointing out the failures of past biologist.
I'm seeing a hindsight is 20 - 20 sort of thought process.

"My land" I bought, Thanks, None taken.
I spend 320 plus days per year in said woods. I have a hand on growth, species and diversity of life in my woods. Because it directly affects my lifestyle.
If you need or want some one to help you with your land feel free to call a government payed consultant,he will help you out.Some people needhelp in these fields others don't.

On a side note why do those "trusted doctors" carry malpractice insurance?
I'm thinking some of these "trusted biologist" might want to look into some malpractice insurance of their own.[]