HB1282 and HB1137 New deer season bills....

[BR549]

If it is not about money then why not eliminate the December and January primitive weapon season and have rifle season from Nov 20 until Jan 31? If it is not about money then why were they wanting to have a primitive weapon season starting Nov 1? Someone please explain to us why the MDWFP thinks we need a primitive weapon season in the first place? If it is not about money then what is the reason?????

Think about what you said for a minute. Why do we have Bow Season? Gun Season? The reason has nothing to do with money and everything to do with the users. The reason we have seperate seasons is because there were users that pushed for it many years ago. People wanted to use black powder guns and not have to compete with modern weapons just as today you do not want to compete with primative weapons.

John Q public is the driving force for changes. Yes commercialism as stepped in and now drives some of the choices but none will come to pass without users pushing for it.

The Department is damed if they do and damed if they don't. Todays hunters are a very selfish group and they all want it their way and as much as they can get.

Duckman, you may be old enough to remember this. The original "primative" weapon season was the only way you could kill an anterless deer outside of archery equipment. We didn't have either sex seasons like we have now. Back then we were still trying to "grow" the herd in general. Then as the herd did grow there became more of a need to try to keep the herd balanced. As with most "old" school hunters most didn't believe in shooting does period! There in itself just further increased the imbalance problem.


Now some of this money issue does hold water in the fact that the primative weapon liscense sale do create a large revenue in the dept. This, they cannot afford to lose. Therefore in my opinion you will never see "primative" weapon seasons go away no matter how "unprimative" it may get. Now as one of the opponents said in quoting Chad he never said the state as a whole was out of balance but that certian areas of the state were and I whole heartedly agree with that. By opening the primative weapon season earlier it would have a twofold effect. One yes it could or should generate more revenue for the state in way of liscense sales for primative weapons. Two it would allow the number of hunters to increase therefore in theory should kill more deer. If the John Q. Public will adhere to these standards and not take the attitude that the state wants us to kill everything and do it properly it should in fact work. Most of the private lands are in some type of management program now. Wether if be Dmap or Femap or just common sense use programs with assistance of a biologist. Looks to me like our dept is doing exactly what their job calls for. Managing our states resources.

You naysayers enjoy your small victory while it last. You will see this again and again. The dept wouldn't be so adamant about it if they didn't have the facts to back it up!

[JLT]

BR,

I don't understand why you say that doing all of this will increase hunter numbers. We already have one of the longest, most liberal seasons in the country. Everybody that wants to hunt has ample time no matter what the weapon. Not trying to pick one with you, but why would opening season earlier for primitive weapon cause more people to hunt?

Jt

[BR549]

BR,

I don't understand why you say that doing all of this will increase hunter numbers. We already have one of the longest, most liberal seasons in the country. Everybody that wants to hunt has ample time no matter what the weapon. Not trying to pick one with you, but why would opening season earlier for primitive weapon cause more people to hunt?

Jt

Proven fact way more people hunt with guns than archery equipment! How many kids or people under the age of 17 or 18 years old you know readily kill deer with a bow? Or for that matter even bow hunt? My daughter has never bowhunted but she's killed her share of deer with a rifle! Has since age 6! And yes she will shoot a big doe before she will shoot an average buck too! Why in the hell would anyone want to shoot a year and half old buck in the first place! Let em grow up! Take out a mature doe first or two! Shooting a young buck never has had any value to our herd. But taking out and old doe can! Especially if she is to old to breed! She's only taking up space and taking away from a growing young deer! The problem is getting the John Q public to understand this! Everyone want to kill a buck! Doesn't matter how young, or little, or few a points, or size of the rack on it's head! Stupid is stupid does! If you want to have something you have to practice a little common sense and hunter restraint!

[JLT]

Again.......not trying to be a smart butt, but you just answered my question indirectly. Your daughter has already killed a pile of deer under the current season structure and if it doesn't change you will still introduce your next child to hunting if they desire to go and they will have plenty of time each year to whack a big slick with the firestick, so there is no need to give anybody two extra weeks with primitive or non-primitive weapons. Your daughter is a hunter and has become that way under the current system. The structure makes no difference to the amount of hunters is all I am saying, or at least I can't find a way that it does in my simple mind. This thread has made me question the reason for the season change even more than I did before. I am actually glad to have gotten involved in this one. And just for you guys that, like me, would like to see the primitive season actually be PRIMITIVE again........a bow is the only real primitive weapon left!!! The primitive weapon season has become a fun season for the gun collector to get to go out and buy a new gun that shoots just like a rifle. BTW....I really enjoyed hammering a buck and doe in Alabama this year with my tru-70. It had been a long time and it was still fun, but just not as fun as seeing that arrow dissappear behind the shoulder.

[BR549]

But again that's "YOUR" choice! We are in an area that needs a trememdous amout of management. It's no problem for us to kill deer. But it's not all about just our area. We have self imposed limits on what we do and we try our best to manage it so we can have a few quality bucks to shoot. Wether that be with a gun a muzzleloader or a rifle. For me personally I could care less if I ever kill another deer. I've killed my share. I killed my first deer in 1969. We didn't have deer back then like we do now. I've killed em with bows, recurves at that, flintlocks, caplocks, shotguns, rifles, pistols and even these new fangled "primative" weapons. Even a few with a truck! But that's not the point! Overall you put more people in the woods earlier with a rifle you will kill more deer! Now what that deer is is strictly left up to the shooter! There in itself is where I say stupid is stupid does! Id be willing to bet 98% of the folks that are complaining about this bill have no problem killing deer. Most of that prolly don't adhere to the limit either! They kill what they can kill and are afraid that putting more people in the woods earlier with a gun is going to "take away" a priviledge that they have had all to themselves. Simple Greed is all it is! they aren't worried about the herd. They don't care about giving John Q. Public more of an opportunity to take an animal. All they want is to have it all to theirselves! Simple facts prevail here. make it easier for John Q. Public to kill a deer and more people will hunt. The more people that hunt the more deer that will be killed! Hence the relaxed rules on the muzzleloader! I certianly don't hope you call the archery equipment of today "primative"?????

[MSDuckmen]

There is little doubt that anyone is going to change their views on this subject from post on a forum. You have to look at the over-all picture.

To just to throw a few facts around to help some understand what drives the department to make these decisions.

1. This past year the insurance companies came to a meeting with the department telling them that they have to do something to help curve the amount of vehicle/deer accidents. Its millions of dollars a year.
2. The department doesn't change the limits as it has been proven more than once that changing the limits does not increase the amount of deer taken. People kill what they want. Less than 1% kills the limit each year.
3. Gun season license sales dropped by more than 15000 licenses last year alone.
4. Primitive weapons season license sales went up by more than 7000 last year.
5. More hunters are moving to the primitive weapon season for a verity of reasons which include but not limited to the timeframe of the seasons, the introduction of young hunters with single shot guns, and the exclusive primitive weapons clubs that have developed since the change of the primitive gun structure.
6. Archery hunters are the smallest of all the user groups yet have the longest opportunity to hunt.

My suggestion would be to call the department and talk directly with Larry or Chad and listen to what they have to say. Most of the people that are complaining are doing so simply because they don't want to lose exclusive time in the woods. Many believe that in doing so will somehow hinder them from having a successful hunt. What ever the reasons you have against this or for this change in structure you must get involved and know the facts before you assume some hidden agenda.

[bigoak]

If it is not about money then why not eliminate the December and January primitive weapon season and have rifle season from Nov 20 until Jan 31? If it is not about money then why were they wanting to have a primitive weapon season starting Nov 1? Someone please explain to us why the MDWFP thinks we need a primitive weapon season in the first place? If it is not about money then what is the reason?????

Think about what you said for a minute. Why do we have Bow Season? Gun Season? The reason has nothing to do with money and everything to do with the users. The reason we have seperate seasons is because there were users that pushed for it many years ago. People wanted to use black powder guns and not have to compete with modern weapons just as today you do not want to compete with primative weapons.

John Q public is the driving force for changes. Yes commercialism as stepped in and now drives some of the choices but none will come to pass without users pushing for it.

The Department is damed if they do and damed if they don't. Todays hunters are a very selfish group and they all want it their way and as much as they can get.

Duckman, you may be old enough to remember this. The original "primative" weapon season was the only way you could kill an anterless deer outside of archery equipment. We didn't have either sex seasons like we have now. Back then we were still trying to "grow" the herd in general. Then as the herd did grow there became more of a need to try to keep the herd balanced. As with most "old" school hunters most didn't believe in shooting does period! There in itself just further increased the imbalance problem.


Now some of this money issue does hold water in the fact that the primative weapon liscense sale do create a large revenue in the dept. This, they cannot afford to lose. Therefore in my opinion you will never see "primative" weapon seasons go away no matter how "unprimative" it may get. Now as one of the opponents said in quoting Chad he never said the state as a whole was out of balance but that certian areas of the state were and I whole heartedly agree with that. By opening the primative weapon season earlier it would have a twofold effect. One yes it could or should generate more revenue for the state in way of liscense sales for primative weapons. Two it would allow the number of hunters to increase therefore in theory should kill more deer. If the John Q. Public will adhere to these standards and not take the attitude that the state wants us to kill everything and do it properly it should in fact work. Most of the private lands are in some type of management program now. Wether if be Dmap or Femap or just common sense use programs with assistance of a biologist. Looks to me like our dept is doing exactly what their job calls for. Managing our states resources.

You naysayers enjoy your small victory while it last. You will see this again and again. The dept wouldn't be so adamant about it if they didn't have the facts to back it up!

Where are these facts and why won't they share them with the general public? How do they know the deer population in every county?

[BR549]

DUHHHHHHH!!!!!!

open your eyes and look man!

[JLT]

Dan,

You are right about not knowing the facts......I do not and I stated that. I admit that I hate to see the change for selfish reasons, but I really feel like it will not make that big of a difference however, I could be wrong. If so I stand corrected, but I still stand on my beliefs. The masses will eventually prevail and I can't believe that they did not this time if the masses want change. I need to get more informed on the issue and maybe I will call Mr. Dacus. I don't even like to hear about insurance companies, but if I was in their shoes I would view it differently I am sure. If the heard needs thinning then let the bullets fly, but let it be in the best interest of the resource.

BR,

I think you are taking what I am saying too personal. We disagree and that is o.k. I will be ok no matter what as long as the turkey herd is healthy;-) I really do think that a bow is still primitive though......I have thought about a recurve, but compound is probably as primitive as I am gonna get...

Jt

[MSDuckmen]

One last thing I think needs to be said.

If it comes down to the fact that the department cannot come to a solution with moves like this to get to where they want with the deer harvest it could come down to a single license for all seasons and a complete restucture of the hunting seasons to include all weapons of choice.
If the user groups don't come to an understanding and help the department control the population it could come to pass and then everyone but the Gun hunter loses.

Don't think for a minute that they can't set all license to the cost of a sportsmans license and give the state of Mississippi a 90 day season and not save a ton of money. If all they had to do was maintain one license structure they could do away with a great deal of over head now required to maintain all the different small game/large game/archery/primative weapons seasons. It's happened in other states and can happen here too.

[MSDuckmen]

Dan,

You are right about not knowing the facts......I do not and I stated that. I admit that I hate to see the change for selfish reasons, but I really feel like it will not make that big of a difference however, I could be wrong. If so I stand corrected, but I still stand on my beliefs. The masses will eventually prevail and I can't believe that they did not this time if the masses want change. I need to get more informed on the issue and maybe I will call Mr. Dacus. I don't even like to hear about insurance companies, but if I was in their shoes I would view it differently I am sure. If the heard needs thinning then let the bullets fly, but let it be in the best interest of the resource.

BR,

I think you are taking what I am saying too personal. We disagree and that is o.k. I will be ok no matter what as long as the turkey herd is healthy;-) I really do think that a bow is still primitive though......I have thought about a recurve, but compound is probably as primitive as I am gonna get...

Jt

Yes we all need to be as informed as possible. Emotions carry so much weight in what hunters believe in today and it really should be more on facts than personal feelings.

I like the season the way it is now too. But I have to trust that the department will do what they feel is best for all involved.

[TODO]

I was just reading the bullnettle news forum, that is where the majority of necks from the now closed mdwfp forum migrated. The topic of the day now is Bobby Cleveland's artice from Sunday. Bobby was for 1282 and more or less said the bowhunters were well organized eliteist and killed the spring squirrel season. So there all upset, some to the point that there calling Bobby out for having a brother that may or may not be limp wristed. Classy bunch im here to say. Bottomline of this argument is the bowhunter contingent doesnt want to share the woods. The arguments about it wont help control the herd, it's all a plot for increased revenue, space aliens from mars, whatever, are excuses for the underlying reason of not sharing the woods. I have been for it all along but am really for it now. The elitist attitudes, bitchin, and moaning from the MBA, etc put a bad taste in me mouth. When it gets passed in the future, i will relish dropping the hammer for the first time on Nov 1.

[JLT]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying and I am sure that the department doesn't want to see the biggest income producer that the state has (deer herd) go bad, but I think a lot of what they don't think about enough is the fact that hunters are lazy and won't do what it takes to manage a deer heard. I have people in my camp telling me to shoot their does because they know that I like to shoot them with a bow and it is simply because they don't want to clean them. I always shoot my five does, but I don't think a longer season will help me do it or cause others to so it, but I hope I am wrong. Another thing that seems to be heard a lot is that I don't want to shoot a doe with my gun and mess up my spot. I understand this thought process. Another one is that it is too easy to shoot a doe with the gun in Ms. What gives........I don't have a good solution, so I guess I will quit griping. One more thing though......if I thought it could go the other way if it didn't work then I might be more accepting, but when it gets voted in it is here to stay.

[bigoak]

DUHHHHHHH!!!!!!

open your eyes and look man!

Look around at what? We have what 82 counties? How many counties do you hunt in? Are you saying that the population on the property you hunt is the same on millions of acres in every county across the entire state.

I am just asking the MDWFP to be open with the public.
-If they say we have a deer population problem state wide then share with the public what data they used to reach that conclusion.
-Share with the public how many more deer they believe will be killed under the new season structure.
-Share with the public how many new hunters they believe will be produced with the new season structure.
-Share with the public what other options they considered and why they believe that their proposal is better than any other option.
-If license sales are going down then share that information with the public. Explain why they believe license sales are going down. A lot of people believe it is because the prices of leases are going up and the average hunter cannot afford to lease hunting property. If they don't believe that then share with the public what they do believe and how they are going to try to increase license sales.
-If the insurance companies are putting pressure on them to reduce the deer population then share that information with the public.

All I am asking for is an open and honest communication between the MDWFP and the public.

[JLT]

Todo,

I ain't for the name calling and all either. A good argument about it never hurt anybody. I don't ever get too upset about Bobby.....he only knows about the deer heard what he gets told and I am sure he is on the side of the MDWFP. I do wish that some middle ground could be found, but it probably won't.