B
bat man
Guest
Super easy to get rid of party hunting here in MN. I could get it done in 1 year with a little help.
not party hunting ... poacher caught
- Thread starter Jameson
- Start date
Terrific_tom
5 year old buck +
In my opinion cross tagging would be a lot easier to eliminate if the State DNR's would be completely funded and not have to depend on license sales for part of their funding. In my opinion a lot of DNR's look the other way when it comes to cross tagging as they will be biting the hand that feeds them.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Be careful what you wish for! DNR funding through license sales is what gives the hunter the upper hand and a larger voice in creating "policy" than some of the other "groups" that would like to do away with hunting. If all the moneys came from a "general" fund, many more groups of people would have just as much of a right as the hunter to force their "views" on the what is "right and wrong" with the hunting rules and they could demand it because it is "their" money going to fund these things. The way it stands now, they have no such argument.
B
bat man
Guest
Beg to differ. We fund but the voices of the special interest groups are winning here in MN. Back room deals on herd size appear to have nothing to do with who funds the management.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Maybe for you MN guys. That is not necessarily the case here in WI. You guys in MN just have an easily manipulated system in place and no data to justify the how's or why's of those reductions. Not saying it doesn't happen east of the river, but with things like the Conservation Congress and the Natural Resources Board in place here, it is a much, much harder scam to pull off. Aldo knew what he was doing when he set this stuff up.
B
bat man
Guest
Still think license revenue is an exception to the 'follow the money' rule.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
That is likely true, but I would still rather have that "exception" working in my favor to somewhat justify the hunters having the most "say", as opposed to putting all moneys in a "general" fund and having all those special interests you are fighting in MN complain that they are as financially vested in the deer population issues as the hunters are. That is BS, if the hunters fund the majority of the management, they should therefore have a part in the final say in all management decisions. After all, isn't that what your shooting for over there? To have a bigger voice? That is never going to happen if the largest portion of dollars comes from outside the hunting community.
Terrific_tom
5 year old buck +
Wisc it would be nice if it would work that way, but a good example in Wisconsin is the unlimited doe tags in Northern Wisconsin for so many years. It was driven by revenue producing antlerless tags and special interest groups, not science based. Even now they allow group hunting with youth antlerless tags up north with the myth that if they don't allow kids to shoot does they won't buy license.
B
bat man
Guest
^^ I dont think the argument that because we pay for the management we should have a larger voice will fly. Sounds like a bribe.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
I understand all of the above and I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen, but I feel it would be far, far worse if the hunters were not primarily funding their own interests. Do we have unlimited antlerless tags in the north now? No. The hunters complained and the revenue went down so the DNR/Walker reacted favorably towards the hunters, it is as simple as that. Sure you get pushback from the loggers and ag groups, but how much worse would it be if they were footing the majority of the bill for our hobby? They are working on getting those laws on group bagging on youth tags dealt with through legislation as we speak. Why? Because the guys doing the funding spoke up and they do not want to see any more lost revenue. If you had some other groups pitching in the majority of the funding, they either wouldn't care or would be all for keeping things the way they are now. You can call it a bribe or whatever else you want, I don't care, when the funding stops being provided by the end user, things will change for the worse and their won't be a damn thing we can do about it then, reduced license revenue will not have nearly the "pull" that it has now.
EDIT: In MN your mileage may vary on this, because it really seems like the powers that be either can't do basic math or they just don't give a rats a$$?
EDIT: In MN your mileage may vary on this, because it really seems like the powers that be either can't do basic math or they just don't give a rats a$$?
bwoods11
5 year old buck +
Simple step to better hunting in MN. Even if we ended party hunting for archery and muzzy (first step) then shotgun zone. The only ones to object I believe would be the northern MN deer camps---if they want it for their 9 or 16 day season... well fine I guess.
One of the main issues is the season to season. Harry shoots a buck with his bow, puts it on his wife tag, then there he is again during shotgun and in the same stand during muzzy. Some guys cannot quit hunting!
B
bat man
Guest
Funding won't go away. It will just get more expensive for those left paying the bill. Its concerned sportsmen making noise and making change happen. Its not their license fees. Comparing MN to WI makes that black and white to me. Forestry interests have absolutely killed the zone 1 deer hunting. Its horrible and going to get worse in some areas. Hunters are leaving that area and their license dollars don't seem to mean squat to anybody.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
So you will pay more for an increasingly inferior product. We call that cannibalizing your own sales. How many more quit due to increased fees at that point. I don't think the politicians are that naïve or stupid, well the WI ones anyway.
These discussions have already taken place in WI and the DNR and the politico's in Madison fully realize that fees cannot be increased above what has been traditionally "normal" here in WI or they WILL eventually lose revenue.
Last edited:
B
bat man
Guest
I am certain those discussions have been occurring here in MN as well.
And I don't think another group is going to step up and volunteer to fund the process. They spend their money in more efficient ways and won't want to change.
I have a neighbor who has been busted before. I only bow hunt, so I will be at the farm on the shotgun opener to watch the neighbor at the crack of dawn both opening day and the first Monday. Wife and sons tags were used to fill 4 tags, and complained not many deer seen, their harvest was 1 buck, 1 doe, and 2 fawns. Another neighbor when 5 deer limit, started giving away deer so he could shoot more.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
The first post and the last post do not jive in my line of thinking. You say the argument that the ones funding the programs having the largest voice will not fly, but then you say no one else is willing to fund those programs, you must use this to your advantage when trying to get your voice heard in the management decisions, bribes be damned. When you said earlier that no one cared about the revenue losses up north, tell the resort owners that and see what they have to say about it, I'm betting you would get a rude awakening from most of them(but you know that already). People who rely on that income will be on your side, you need to get them to speak up as well, it helped in WI and if you can get them to growl loud enough about it in St. Paul, someone will eventually listen, especially with the fishing going in the crapper as well.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Someone mentioned it above and this post shows it again. All involved parties need to be reprimanded in these situations, not just the "shooter". More folks would "wake up" if they were financially vested in following the rules.
B
bat man
Guest
I think we can argue we are not getting our moneys worth. And we have been doing that. And the audit should help us receive a fairer shake from the license dollars we spend. Even though only 15% of it is spent on 'deer'
B
bat man
Guest
Back to party poaching. I hate the fact that we can not monitor how many deer hunters there are in MN because of guys stuffing their pockets with wifes and kids tags. And then when we hand out fewer doe tags, the rate of abuse simply climbs.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
I don't think the redistribution of license dollars is going to directly put more deer on your landscape, it will help with data gathering and other such things that are likely underfunded at this point, but if the decision making is left as it is you are just treading water. It is my sincere hope for you all that your "stakeholder" process will become more transparent and that the new data collected will be used to drive your numbers as opposed to the whims of a one horse show directed by an Area Deer Manager.
Similar threads
