|
Post by fishinmachine on Jan 27, 2012 11:48:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by salmoneye on Jan 27, 2012 13:42:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vtgooseman on Jan 27, 2012 14:50:29 GMT -5
It seems to really be making a difference in my neck of the woods... Id like to see the deer per year dropped to 2 total but thats just me.....
|
|
|
Post by luckydevil on Jan 28, 2012 18:03:21 GMT -5
Is there a reason that this is going around? has someone suggested removing it?
I am all for Antler Restrictions, but would like to see 3 pts on a side, so I am not sure I want to sign it.
|
|
|
Post by fishinmachine on Jan 28, 2012 20:38:20 GMT -5
there are rumors of the state wanting to remove the spike ban and we are trying to get them to leave it alone for at least 3 more years,thus this petition. A lot of hunters want to be able to shoot spikes,a lot want to raise it to 3 on a side,we want to leave it alone until more data can be compiled
|
|
|
Post by No Pressure No Problem on Jan 29, 2012 15:58:05 GMT -5
The antler restriction is working. I'll sign it. The state is losing money because they can't get the success rate up quick enough. Shooting the number of bucks we do each year will only get better if they leave the program alone. That's just my opinion. I'd like to see one deer only. You shoot a buck with a bow. DONE You shoot a buck with a rifle DONE You shoot a buck with muzzleloader DONE.
|
|
|
Post by luckydevil on Jan 29, 2012 18:09:26 GMT -5
One thing I do know is that if they remove the ban I will not hunt in VT anymore. VT has had literally the worst deer hunting in the US and is only now starting to get better.
I will hold off signing in hopes of raising it to 3 pts on a side, but if I hear any substantiated rumors concerning doing away with it I will sign.
|
|
|
Post by fishinmachine on Jan 29, 2012 20:24:29 GMT -5
One thing I do know is that if they remove the ban I will not hunt in VT anymore. VT has had literally the worst deer hunting in the US and is only now starting to get better. I will hold off signing in hopes of raising it to 3 pts on a side, but if I hear any substantiated rumors concerning doing away with it I will sign. signing the petition is not is not the same as signing a law,All it says is to wait until more data is collected,it is only an opinion to be shown the F&W Dept, not a law, maybe it will encourage a 3-point rule
|
|
|
Post by barrebobber on Jan 30, 2012 7:30:58 GMT -5
There is no way the state will remove this. Those people that want it changed need to get out of the coffee chop and hunt, or if they want meat that bad, pick up a bow and do your homework! I'm sick of this!
|
|
|
Post by lightning3m1 on Feb 24, 2012 12:46:08 GMT -5
I'm signing it. As for the 1 buck rule...why? The very few folks that get more than 1 per yearare not affecting the population at all; where, on the other hand, the extra revenue from those that fill a tag and wish to keep thier hunting season going is significant. I am amongst the majority, that once I shoot that 1st one, my standards increase significantly. I will only shoot a corker for a 2nd buck, and in 20 years,that has only happened once (1993), but I have paid for and hunted 2nd bucks many times. If you check the stats, a VERY small # shoot 2 antlered deer, and back when you were able to shoot 3buck, there was only about 11 total statewide to do that.
|
|
|
Post by luckydevil on Feb 24, 2012 19:58:39 GMT -5
What you described is the exact reason to have one buck. If you can shoot only 1 then you are not likely to shoot a yearling 3 pt on opening day. More people would pass on small bucks therefore more bucks would make it through the season.
I think it would help our buck quality, however I think 3 pts on a side would be better because we would protect the vast majority of yearling bucks and still have the opportunity to take a 2 nice bucks in a season.
|
|
|
Post by vtbuckrulrss on Mar 28, 2012 17:31:55 GMT -5
Well, i dont mind putting my neck on the chopping block.AR's were, are, and always be a big load of crap. In fact, all they amounted to was a short term gain, and looking at the charts presented at the meeting the other night in Montpelier, and the amount of disgruntled hunters there, the general consensus was that hunting here now sucks, hunters are leaving in droves, and they wont return. License sales have been dropping for some time, especially since 2005. Data presented at the hearing indicates a few things: no one knows how to interpret it, antler beam dimensions have been dropping, as have weights. WE NEED TO RETURN TO WHAT WE HAD IF WE WANT TO SAVE HUNTING IN VERMONT. PERIOD!! GET IT?
|
|
|
Post by vtbuckrulrss on Mar 28, 2012 17:34:51 GMT -5
It was designed to be a short term, five year experiment. If you go into the departments library, you will see that as far back as 2008 the state said that we had probably achieved max short term benefits, and that things need to be adjusted. Yeah, to a sense of normalcy. Really? 3 per side? WTF are you thinking?
|
|
|
Post by luckydevil on Apr 16, 2012 19:48:37 GMT -5
It was designed to be a short term, five year experiment. If you go into the departments library, you will see that as far back as 2008 the state said that we had probably achieved max short term benefits, and that things need to be adjusted. Yeah, to a sense of normalcy. Really? 3 per side? WTF are you thinking? As long as I have hunted, it has been terrible in VT. We have seen much better hunting since AR's. What is there to go back to? The huge majority of bucks shot being 100 lbs spikes? I know I don't want to go back to that. WTF am I thinking? besides the above, is that your point was missed because of your sarcasm and disrespect for another point of view.
|
|
|
Post by vtbuckrulrss on May 28, 2012 15:09:48 GMT -5
I took (obviuosly) a good, long time to cool down and think this out. Let me just make a few points... pre ar's, at the annual meetings, the state continously stated that our herd was, health wise, better than the rest of New England. Heavier beams, weights, repro, everything. When we got the new, now ex commish, in charge, thats when the proposed changes first came about. Prior to him, most were happy with what we had. People keep talking about shooting spikes, and being unhappy doing it. Easy, obvious answer.. don't shoot them if that's not what you want. Mnay of us are quite happy to take a spike. And to answer the " if you just want meat, shoot a doe with your bow or muzzy" people.... ya know, many people don't have the luxury to put THAT amount of time into doing all 3 seasons. I put the time in, and do well. Maybe those people should start looking at the whole hunting community, and not just their position. At the meeting in Montpelier, my thoughts here were echoed, over and over and over. Plus, let's not forget when you take the spikes out of the harvest numbers, you will skew them towards larger deer, so this is just a bait and switch by the department. At that Montpelier meeting, it was interesting how the department stated that they have decided they really don't know how to interpret some of the ar results, and didn't in fact want to even show a couple of the charts that showed things going backwards. If you check into the departments own library, you will see that as far back as 2008, the state makes the comment that all gains to be had as a result of ar's have been realized. The bottom line, in my opinion, and many others, is to return things to the way they were. No slots, no 3 per side. Oh, and prior to the ar's being instituted, myself and quite a few others that I know, were hunting very, very successfully. Mnay of those guys now have empty freezers year after year.
|
|