North Park Hunter Fined
01-11-2010, 05:21 AM
#21
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Going to have to disagree with you here, while the admin of the membership may not be costing the the taxpayer anything, the upkeep on the park is. If you are paying taxes to the county then every county resident should have access to the park and not have to go through joining some club. As far as qualifying with an archery accuracy test, every state that runs a hunter education program has an accuracy standard that has to be met. So your point is moot at best.
So if the county did the background checks, the archery test and enrolled the elgible hunters instead of WMA doing it would you be OK with it then? Or are you objecting to the screening and placement of hunters and keeping control of the number of hunters?
Last edited by BTBowhunter; 01-11-2010 at 05:24 AM.
01-11-2010, 05:35 AM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: elmira ny
Posts: 1,676
If membership werent open to anyone, you would be correct. But since membership is open to anyone who applies and can pass the requirements, it's not discrimination any more than passing a drivers test to drive.
As I said before, I'm in a similar program where the selection process is handled by the police department. It works very well but the local taxpayers foot the bill for the time involved.
The only real difference here, between this regulated hunt and some others, is that the county has elected to let a non profit group do the screening. Instead of using taxpayer funded resources, they let a volunteer group do the legwork. It's worked pretty well for years now. hunters who play by the rules get to hunt and the parks take care of a deer problem without costing the taxpayers money.
Like I said, before WMA came on the scene there was NO hunting for anyone in those parks. (except for poachers who snuck in and THAT was really bad for our hunters image)
Shouldnt we be asking why this guy wouldn't/ couldn't play by the rules? They aren't hard to follow.
As I said before, I'm in a similar program where the selection process is handled by the police department. It works very well but the local taxpayers foot the bill for the time involved.
The only real difference here, between this regulated hunt and some others, is that the county has elected to let a non profit group do the screening. Instead of using taxpayer funded resources, they let a volunteer group do the legwork. It's worked pretty well for years now. hunters who play by the rules get to hunt and the parks take care of a deer problem without costing the taxpayers money.
Like I said, before WMA came on the scene there was NO hunting for anyone in those parks. (except for poachers who snuck in and THAT was really bad for our hunters image)
Shouldnt we be asking why this guy wouldn't/ couldn't play by the rules? They aren't hard to follow.
Agreed.
01-11-2010, 08:16 AM
#23
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 343
If membership werent open to anyone, you would be correct. But since membership is open to anyone who applies and can pass the requirements, it's not discrimination any more than passing a drivers test to drive.
As I said before, I'm in a similar program where the selection process is handled by the police department. It works very well but the local taxpayers foot the bill for the time involved.
The only real difference here, between this regulated hunt and some others, is that the county has elected to let a non profit group do the screening. Instead of using taxpayer funded resources, they let a volunteer group do the legwork. It's worked pretty well for years now. hunters who play by the rules get to hunt and the parks take care of a deer problem without costing the taxpayers money.
Like I said, before WMA came on the scene there was NO hunting for anyone in those parks. (except for poachers who snuck in and THAT was really bad for our hunters image)
Shouldnt we be asking why this guy wouldn't/ couldn't play by the rules? They aren't hard to follow.
As I said before, I'm in a similar program where the selection process is handled by the police department. It works very well but the local taxpayers foot the bill for the time involved.
The only real difference here, between this regulated hunt and some others, is that the county has elected to let a non profit group do the screening. Instead of using taxpayer funded resources, they let a volunteer group do the legwork. It's worked pretty well for years now. hunters who play by the rules get to hunt and the parks take care of a deer problem without costing the taxpayers money.
Like I said, before WMA came on the scene there was NO hunting for anyone in those parks. (except for poachers who snuck in and THAT was really bad for our hunters image)
Shouldnt we be asking why this guy wouldn't/ couldn't play by the rules? They aren't hard to follow.
Well said, I agree.
