Quote:
Originally Posted by J.B.
That's if you belive thier numbers...once you look at the data a little closer you realize most of the numbers are very unrealistic...I do believe certain zones are over 15% harvest but not by much and certainly not all the zones identified...a grade 3 student could do the math ESRD bases thier harvest data upon-trust me its not because kids are so smart these days. If sound data indicated there was indeed over harvest by all means implement a separate archery draw. Its only the responsible thing to do. But the numbers are rediculous, and so is the proposed change - hence the anger and frustration by so many hunters...
|
But yet we as hunters follow along and offer suggestions to soften the blow. At some point we need to draw a line in the sand and say no..............who knows if it would help but at least there is recourse then. If we comply and help build the future it pretty negates our voice in the future. ESRD has long used AGMAG as proof that it's meeting its responsibilities for public input and ultimately cooperative solutions to management. It will be interesting to see how the bighorn sheep issue plays out. Regardless, there will be room for recourse. Not so much in this case I don't think. It's time hunters and the groups that represent them start thinking differently and not believe that softening the blow is a victory.