4
4000fps
Guest
So many seem so eager to pat some rich hunter on the back, because he bought an expensive Governor's tag, thus "helping wildlife by pumping money into the system."
How can a measly $50k or $250k combat piss poor managment from the state agency? I don't care if a Governor's tag raises $1 million dollars, the DOW curtails any effort groups like MDF and RMEF put into place.
I know groups like the MDF obviously need money to complete projects, but it is hard to think positive when the DOW does everything they can to erase those efforts.
Mule deer numbers have been declining for decades now, and I personally believe one day they will become endangered. How can money combat failing policy? The Colorado DOW for example, does not really care about the herd numbers, or herd health. As long as they are selling tags, and making money, they are happy.
One fatal flaw in the Colorado deer numbers system:
1. No mandatory check in for harvested animals. For example, in some states, like Nebraska, it is mandatory to check in your deer. You simply take it to a business that sells licenses, and they fill out a quick card, band the antlers, and you are on your way. This gives the Nebraska DNR factual harvest data, not statistical.
There are other problems with the DOW, and part of it is to be blamed on the hunters...If our goal is to bring back deer numbers, one would have to ask, why are we even hunting mulies at all? What would happen if they literally shut the season down for 2 years? Assuming most healthy does would have one fawn, and taking out factors like predation, winterkill etc, the herd in theory could double in merely two years.
Instead, in 2008, hunters "reportedly" killed 35,552 deer in Colorado. 9771 were does, and 712 were fawns. One less extreme option would be to be quit issuing doe tags! Over 10,000 does/fawns were killed, how is that going to help deer rebound? The DOW and others will argue "some units have a lot of does, and it negatively affects buck doe ratios." What exactly is a bad buck/doe ratio? How about shooting less bucks, wouldn't that also change the ratio? And who are we to determine what an ideal ratio is? It seems like nature was managing the herds just fine, before man started hunting them in great numbers. The fact is, humans are deer's number one predator.
Back in the 60's, and even into the 80's, muley hunting was great in Colorado. Talking to old timers, they would see hundreds of deer in a day of hunting. Has the landscape really changed that much, that we couldn't support more deer? Development of winter areas in some units (mostly the front range, and I70 corridor), certainly has had in impact, but why are numbers dwindling in more remote areas too? Why did it seem to coincide with the season change in 1986, when the hunting season structure changed (mainly due to the urging of the outfitters), which more than doubled the number of days deer were hunted compared to 1985 and prior?
The herds have not rebounded yet. But... we still have just as damaging structures in place. Why did they create a 4th buck season? It doesn't take a good hunter to realize shooting bucks during the rut is not as hard as hunting them 2nd season. Some of those bucks become just plain stupid, even walking down city streets in the middle of the day looking for does. Yet, we don't rifle hunt elk during the rut, and they are at "record numbers"...? We are still shooting does, still shooting fawns, and now hunting bucks even later into the year. Wouldn't correcting those things be easier than what is looming in the future, an all out closure on deer hunting?
I actually believe the anti-hunters may be on the verge of learning our secret... Our age old arguement that hunting is needed to control deer numbers is obviously flawed at this point. Hunters better hope the antis don't ever do their homework, and research the numbers, because that arguement is going to get blown out of the water. When that happens, what excuse do hunters have? This is not the great depression, nor is it a third world country. People are not starving. Most don't "need" to hunt to survive. And the families that do really depend on the meat, should be the most alarmed at the failing polices.
The liberals obviously still buy into the hype, because they pushed for wolf introduction. Fact, wolves control herd numbers. Get enough wolves into the mix, and you don't need hunters, and as a bonus people don't "need" guns. All the liberals and antis would have to do, is look at the numbers. Deer numbers haven't rebounded, yet we still hunt deer. What is going to happen when an anti with a little money and power figures this out? Trapping was always viewed in a negative manner by the liberals, and look what happened to it. The antis got organized, and got an anti-trapping amendment put up for vote on the Colorado ballot in 1996. Trapping has been banned ever since.
The mathematical ability to draw a deer tag in most units has left most hunters frustrated. It is now becoming obvious that the current preference point system is a mathematial failure. Too many people now sitting on high points, and it will take more than a lifetime before they get cycled through for a tag. What is the answer according the DOW? A more complicated draw system. Wouldn't it be better to fix the managment policies, to increase herd numbers? More animals, means more tags, which means shorter lines.
In my opinion, at the minimum, we need to get rid of doe/fawn tags, and get rid of the 4th season, that would be a start. People need to reallize, nothing is permanent. Hell, even only offering buck tags for Colorado's second season for a couple years would have an exponential positive effect on buck numbers. We also need to take the business aspect out of hunting. It is a shame that outfitters and landowners have more of a voice on policy, than the hunters that fund the whole agency through license fees. (Don't even get me started on guys like Barf Carter, guys like him want anemic tag numbers, because it puts more money in his pocket.) I guess the real question is, what do hunters want? I would assume they would want a chance to go buck hunting every 1-2 years like the old days. I would assume they would like the chance to shoot a mature animal. Here is a reality check, that is never going to happen on the current path. We have been listening to excuses for 20 years now, isn't it time to organize, and force a change?
How can a measly $50k or $250k combat piss poor managment from the state agency? I don't care if a Governor's tag raises $1 million dollars, the DOW curtails any effort groups like MDF and RMEF put into place.
I know groups like the MDF obviously need money to complete projects, but it is hard to think positive when the DOW does everything they can to erase those efforts.
Mule deer numbers have been declining for decades now, and I personally believe one day they will become endangered. How can money combat failing policy? The Colorado DOW for example, does not really care about the herd numbers, or herd health. As long as they are selling tags, and making money, they are happy.
One fatal flaw in the Colorado deer numbers system:
1. No mandatory check in for harvested animals. For example, in some states, like Nebraska, it is mandatory to check in your deer. You simply take it to a business that sells licenses, and they fill out a quick card, band the antlers, and you are on your way. This gives the Nebraska DNR factual harvest data, not statistical.
There are other problems with the DOW, and part of it is to be blamed on the hunters...If our goal is to bring back deer numbers, one would have to ask, why are we even hunting mulies at all? What would happen if they literally shut the season down for 2 years? Assuming most healthy does would have one fawn, and taking out factors like predation, winterkill etc, the herd in theory could double in merely two years.
Instead, in 2008, hunters "reportedly" killed 35,552 deer in Colorado. 9771 were does, and 712 were fawns. One less extreme option would be to be quit issuing doe tags! Over 10,000 does/fawns were killed, how is that going to help deer rebound? The DOW and others will argue "some units have a lot of does, and it negatively affects buck doe ratios." What exactly is a bad buck/doe ratio? How about shooting less bucks, wouldn't that also change the ratio? And who are we to determine what an ideal ratio is? It seems like nature was managing the herds just fine, before man started hunting them in great numbers. The fact is, humans are deer's number one predator.
Back in the 60's, and even into the 80's, muley hunting was great in Colorado. Talking to old timers, they would see hundreds of deer in a day of hunting. Has the landscape really changed that much, that we couldn't support more deer? Development of winter areas in some units (mostly the front range, and I70 corridor), certainly has had in impact, but why are numbers dwindling in more remote areas too? Why did it seem to coincide with the season change in 1986, when the hunting season structure changed (mainly due to the urging of the outfitters), which more than doubled the number of days deer were hunted compared to 1985 and prior?
The herds have not rebounded yet. But... we still have just as damaging structures in place. Why did they create a 4th buck season? It doesn't take a good hunter to realize shooting bucks during the rut is not as hard as hunting them 2nd season. Some of those bucks become just plain stupid, even walking down city streets in the middle of the day looking for does. Yet, we don't rifle hunt elk during the rut, and they are at "record numbers"...? We are still shooting does, still shooting fawns, and now hunting bucks even later into the year. Wouldn't correcting those things be easier than what is looming in the future, an all out closure on deer hunting?
I actually believe the anti-hunters may be on the verge of learning our secret... Our age old arguement that hunting is needed to control deer numbers is obviously flawed at this point. Hunters better hope the antis don't ever do their homework, and research the numbers, because that arguement is going to get blown out of the water. When that happens, what excuse do hunters have? This is not the great depression, nor is it a third world country. People are not starving. Most don't "need" to hunt to survive. And the families that do really depend on the meat, should be the most alarmed at the failing polices.
The liberals obviously still buy into the hype, because they pushed for wolf introduction. Fact, wolves control herd numbers. Get enough wolves into the mix, and you don't need hunters, and as a bonus people don't "need" guns. All the liberals and antis would have to do, is look at the numbers. Deer numbers haven't rebounded, yet we still hunt deer. What is going to happen when an anti with a little money and power figures this out? Trapping was always viewed in a negative manner by the liberals, and look what happened to it. The antis got organized, and got an anti-trapping amendment put up for vote on the Colorado ballot in 1996. Trapping has been banned ever since.
The mathematical ability to draw a deer tag in most units has left most hunters frustrated. It is now becoming obvious that the current preference point system is a mathematial failure. Too many people now sitting on high points, and it will take more than a lifetime before they get cycled through for a tag. What is the answer according the DOW? A more complicated draw system. Wouldn't it be better to fix the managment policies, to increase herd numbers? More animals, means more tags, which means shorter lines.
In my opinion, at the minimum, we need to get rid of doe/fawn tags, and get rid of the 4th season, that would be a start. People need to reallize, nothing is permanent. Hell, even only offering buck tags for Colorado's second season for a couple years would have an exponential positive effect on buck numbers. We also need to take the business aspect out of hunting. It is a shame that outfitters and landowners have more of a voice on policy, than the hunters that fund the whole agency through license fees. (Don't even get me started on guys like Barf Carter, guys like him want anemic tag numbers, because it puts more money in his pocket.) I guess the real question is, what do hunters want? I would assume they would want a chance to go buck hunting every 1-2 years like the old days. I would assume they would like the chance to shoot a mature animal. Here is a reality check, that is never going to happen on the current path. We have been listening to excuses for 20 years now, isn't it time to organize, and force a change?