Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
No need to be so melodramatic potty. See this is where things get blown completely out of proportion. Let's forget about the cwd zones for this discussion as that's another kettle of fish. Hunter numbers are set according to game populations and the harvest they are trying to obtain. In the past few years we have had some hard winters and other factors that have caused mule deer populations to drop and harvest to be reduced. This has caused greatly increased wait times in the draw. It has also resulted in archers going over the 15% cap. Maybe archers aren't harvesting any more deer than they were 10 years ago but the allowable harvest has been reduced so the archer percentrage of the harvest has increased.
I certainly don't believe that archers are to blame for the decline in mule deer numbers nor do most I suspect but when the overall harvest is cut back, in fairness, all user groups should be cut back. Unfortunately, the only means of acheiving that is through a draw. At such time that populations increase and the archer harvest dips below the 15% cap, I would hope they would increase opportunity again just as they do by increasing the number of tags available for rifle hunters.
It's all proportional.
|
Has it really ? My question now is what data is more accurate, the voluntary hunter surveys, through the computer when everyone doesn't have equal access! Or the Bighorn sheep data, they tried to pass on us, that everyone stood up against?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
Yup it sure does. Is the data 100% accurate? Likely not. Is it the information that we've relied on and set management through for decades...yup. It's the best we have right now. I can't see the point of totally discounting it. I doubt it's as inaccurate as some are portraying.
|
Perhaps that's our own dimise, look at where that has got us!
Rackmaster, really hit the nail, on how to enforce a manditory hunter survey !