Good to know. It's just hard listening to some of this. Not because my opinion is correct, but because many of the statements are OPINIONS that could effect our state's hunting in major ways. I haven't heard many facts.John is actually a BIG TIME hunter. But I see what you are saying.
Have you listed to it? The RACs have given the impression that they supported the plan mostly as it stands. So even though we heard otherwise at the meetings, they aren't reporting that to the board...So much for the board giving 2 shxts about what the RACs think.
DallanC - I agree with you! I, for my own selfish reasons, wanted the ML regulations to stay the same. I would be in the top point category for a LE Elk unit and have been looking forward to that hunt for some time now. As stated in the broadcast, 53% of people surveyed agreed with allowing magnified scopes, but 3 out of 5 RAC meetings voted against allowing magnified scopes - which is 60%. All those comments about how the "majority" has already voted, were not really spot on.So much for the board giving 2 shxts about what the RACs think.
Shocked at how little the RACs have said. They have approved basically everything with little or no voiced concern.Have you listed to it? The RACs have given the impression that they supported the plan mostly as it stands. So even though we heard otherwise at the meetings, they aren't reporting that to the board...
Agreed. The RAC is all for show. Maybe I am naive, but it appears year after year, the board generally approves 90%+ of what the DWR proposes for wildlife management. It is too bad that they then add or subtract something for hunter management.the board is a joke. and the rac's are all for show..
This was one of the better parts I personally viewed today. The guy had requested 2 additional elk permits for his cwmu. He currently had the highest acres per tag of the 5 cwmu's within 5 miles. Even with the 2 additional tags he would be the lowest, or close to. The board was shocked to learn we don't have a uniform way to distribute tags.Scofield Canyon CWMU made a dang good point, and it just seems like they don't have enough political friends to get the benefit from their RAC. The board doesn't understand the justification either.
I seriously do not understand some of those that hold positions. Completely clueless. and then there's the ring leader who only likes to hear himself talk and crack lame jokes. I hope a few of those guys don't weasel their way in on the expo proposal decision. You could tell a couple of them were combing with a fine brush on what means "conflict of interest." Nothing surprises me anymore.Soapbox Rant #2:
After listening for the entire day yesterday, the common crux and justification behind moving tags out of the early and late hunts by creating the October LE hunts was to allow more hunter opportunity and reduce the pressure on mature bulls during the rut. As it now seems, mature bulls will be pressured with high-powered rifles (no longer muzzleloaders) for the vast majority of the rut - give or take a week.
Using the hunt dates from the fall of 2015, I understand that the dates will be different in 2016, but data from 2015 will be plenty to paint the picture.
September 12 - 20 LE Early Rifle 9 Days
September 21 - October 2 LE Muzzleloader 12 Days
October 3 - October 15 General Season (which will now be the mid-season LE in 2016) 13 Days
That is 34 days straight of hunting pressure during the rut or thereabouts. Not to mention the rutting action that the LE archers get to enjoy, the last 3-5 days of their hunt. Some of these changes do not make sense, if we are trying to reduce the amount of pressure the bulls get during the rut.
I am done with my rant now! O|*