| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 600.1 | VT or bust | KNGBUD::LAFOSSE | | Wed Jan 31 1990 16:13 | 13 |
| George,
no need for a safety course, they require a previous license. $70 for
a rifle license... or there abouts, i keep forgeting, cause i buy an
archery stamp and a muzzleloader stamp also...
don't have the official dates yet, but it should start nov 10th. and
end the sunday after thanksgiving, according to past years.
dont get your hopes up to much, their spindly in VT 8^)...
seriously though, a beautiful state, lots of deer. should have a ball!
Fra
|
| 600.2 | | MERLAN::GOGUEN | | Thu Feb 01 1990 08:09 | 15 |
| George,
Fra was correct on both accounts, the gun season starts nov.
10th and the fee for a non-resident lisence is $70.00. As many
years I've hunted Vt. the season always started 12 days before
Thanksgiving day and runs through the following Sunday. Sunday hunting
is allowed. What part of the state do you intend to hunt ?
I had an opportunity to hunt you great state of Colorado a few years
back and let me tell you, Vt. and Col. are two worlds apart. None
the less I'm sure you'll enjoy yourself.
Vermont also has some great spring Turkey hunting which I'm looking
forard to this May.
Good Hunting,
Bruce
|
| 600.3 | I'll find out | SSDEVO::BOURBEAU | | Thu Feb 01 1990 10:35 | 8 |
| I'm not sure where in Vermont we'll hunt. My brother owns a few
acres there, and one of the main reasons I'm going is to spend time with
him, something I haven't been able to do in ten years. I am looking
forward to the hunting itself, though. When I find out what area the
land is in, I'll post it here. I'm anxious to hear your opinions of
the place, and any tips or suggestions you may have.
George
|
| 600.4 | | KNGBUD::LAFOSSE | | Thu Feb 01 1990 15:15 | 10 |
| re:.2
Bruce, I noticed your on MERLAN, one of the guys I hunt with in VT is
on that node also, maybe you know him; Barry Santos...
George, don't know whether or not you hunt with a bow, but if you have
trouble with conflictiing dates during Nov, the archery season runs mid
Oct. Somthing to think about.
Fra
|
| 600.5 | No arrows, how 'bout round ball? | SSDEVO::BOURBEAU | | Thu Feb 01 1990 18:19 | 5 |
| Thanks for the tip Fra, but I haven't used a bow in (mumble) years
and no longer have any viable equipment. I do have plenty much black
powda' stuff though. Any help there?
George
|
| 600.6 | | KNGBUD::LAFOSSE | | Fri Feb 02 1990 08:44 | 8 |
| George,
The muzzleloader season starts the Wednesday after Thanksgiving and
runs for 5 days (Nov 28 - Dec 2)... Don't hold me to this as I don't
have the official dates yet, but this is how its been in the past.
perhaps someone else has them already and can post them.
good luck, keep your power dry, Fra
|
| 600.7 | Lesson Learned the Hard Way | MERLAN::GOGUEN | | Fri Feb 02 1990 09:30 | 23 |
| The dates on the muzzleloader season in Vt. have changed. The season
now runs for 9 consecutive days. It starts the following Saturday
after the close of the regular gun season. Dec.1st through Dec.9th.
1990. Why I know this is because it changed last year. The guy
I hunt with shot a nice eight pointer Friday Dec 1st 1989. The dates
for the season in the Vermont Fish & Wildlife book/handout said
the season was Nov.29 - Dec.3ed. Infact the books are printed too
early (my opinion) because the Fih and Wildlife dept. changed the
season in the middle of the year. Well to make a long story short,
when he went to check his deer in, he was informed he just shot
a deer out of season. Well he called the warden to strighten things
out and the warden Don Gregory took his deer!!! Talk about an upset
hunter.
George, send me your mail address and I send you a copy of the laws,
for what it's worth and Vermonts "guide to hunting".
Fra, Barry no longer works here at NSO. I'm sure I know him from
sight (small building) but have not had a chance to meet him. If
I had known we shared the love of hunting, I would have a point
to get to know him.
Good Luck & Good Hunting,
Bruce
|
| 600.8 | 1990-1995 Deer Management Plan | BTOVT::REMILLARD_K | | Fri Feb 02 1990 16:35 | 64 |
|
Oooooh that's too bad about your friend's deer and his liscense etc.
It does state on the cover of the "Vermont Digest of Fish & Wildlife
Laws - 19**" laws are subject to change by the or the Fish and Wildlife
board, new laws (season date changes etc.) are approved by the govenor
in July.
There are some pretty significant changes taking place in VT at the
present time. An all new Draft Deer Management Plan is in the process
of being adopted. I attended a public forum on this, and a special
meeting with the Deer Project leader (biologist Ron Regan) a few weeks
ago. I don't know how much will affect the non-resident. One thing
the majority of people wanted was non-resident liscense fees to remain
the same, and resident fees to increase. It is quite evident we need
the return of the non-resident hunter to help get out F&G dept. out
of the red, before they do something stupid like open the door to money
from the General Fund. Which IMO would really hurt this state.
Some of the changes being considered are; harvesting antlerless deer
during the 9 day muzzleloader season - by permit only (more about
this later), adding a "successful" bow tag to the archery season -
where this could be used to harvest an antlerless deer (this would
replace an antlerless permit), moving the deer season back a week,
etc., many things being discussed. Some of the assumptions of the
plan are;
o deer numbers of the 60's can not be supported because of
biological and cultural limits
o deer populations of the 80's will be used as a "low limit", these
numbers are unacceptable
o DEER MUST BE HUNTED (my favorite assumption)
o antlerless hunting is the best method of stabalizing or reducing
deer populations
About the antlerless permits; there is significant resistance among the
residents not to allow ANY permits for non-residents. In our special
meeting (about 18 people) only me and one other fellow was for alloting
the % of non-resident liscense purchases to the % of antlerless
permits. That is, 15% of all liscenses sold are bought by
non-residents, 15% of antlerless permits alloted to non-residents.
This was very unpopular. I would suggest if this concerns you to write
(don't waste any time either, the final draft of this plan will be
written in the next couple of weeks) to;
Mr. Ronald Regan
Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife
324 North Main Street
Barre, VT 05641
telephone # 802-479-3241
I would suggest writing vs. calling, so he can have concrete data in
hand. By the way I feel Ron is leaning towards non-resident permits,
but doesn't want to upset the residents by doing so. Let him know
how you feel, if it matters.
If anyone has any interest for more specific let me know.
Kevin
|
| 600.9 | Thanks For Your Support | MERLAN::GOGUEN | | Mon Feb 05 1990 13:49 | 25 |
| Kevin,
Thanks for your support. Us non-residents need more peolpe
like yourself putting in a plug for us at these meetings.
As for my friend who lost his deer, his lisence was not taken away.
In fact the warded gave him is muzzleloader deer tag back and told
him to go get another deer when the season opened the next day.
This did not make him feel any better. Eight pointers don't come
along every day as we all know.
The Fish and Wildlife does a good job publishing the changes to
the dates in the local news papers and sporting magazines, I had
read about the changes in Outdoor Life. The magazines also state
to check with the Fish and Wildlife Dept. to be sure. We had discussed
the changes the weekend before the incident happened. We decided
to look at the book and ignore the magazines (big mistake).
What I would like to see is have the dates posted where lisences
are sold, check-in stations ect.. And for us who purchase our lisences
through the mail, be sent in the mail, a one page printout of the
changes.
Keep us informed on the outcome of the proposals to the deer seasons.
I'll tell Bob ( my friend ) and we'll get together and send a letter
to Ron Ragan.
Thanks Again,
Bruce
|
| 600.10 | realistic warden decision... | BTOVT::REMILLARD_K | | Mon Feb 05 1990 15:20 | 9 |
|
re .9
Your fried was really lucky. Most wardens I know wouldn't have thought
twice about giving the big citation. He must have done a good job
convincing him he didn't know the dates were changed. At any rate he
learned a lesson, so the citation would have not proved anything.
Kevin
|
| 600.11 | A mistake is just that, a mistake | BTOVT::ALEXANDER | | Tue Feb 06 1990 15:03 | 8 |
| Think about it Kevin. If you knew that you took a deer out of season
would you take it to a reporting station? Several years ago I heard
about a guy that went out the second Sat in Nov (as usual) and shot
a nice 8 ptr. That was one of the few years that the season went
one week after Thanksgiving. When he arrived at the reporting station
he was informed that he was a week ahead of the season. The Warder took
his deer and that was the end of it, no fine or anything.
|
| 600.12 | I still say you caught him on a good day. | BTOVT::REMILLARD_K | | Wed Feb 07 1990 12:45 | 7 |
|
re .11
Joe, I did think about it, my experience with wardens suggests that
this guy was lucky, mistake or not.
Kevin
|
| 600.13 | this should stir up a bees nest | KNGBUD::LAFOSSE | | Wed Feb 07 1990 14:01 | 24 |
| Kevin,
Are you serious about the F&W operating in the red?
Tis a sad state of affairs, when so much income is from non-resident
license sales, and no consideration is given to them in regards to
any kind of permit system... You would think with the drastic drop in
non-resident sales in the last 2 years that they would look deeply into
this situation, and offer some incentives... not just keep the cost of
the license down.
It's nice to hear that some of the residents are going to bat for us.
Appreciate all the help you can give us.... thanks!
Personally, if taking does is as important to the herd as they say,
my opinion is open up the muzzleloader season for does (same as MA),
and offer archers a second tag if successful. I feel that antlerless
permits during the rifle season is awful, I have seen too many locals
taking advantage of this situation in the past.
I sent out a letter to Mr. Regan regarding this, it'll be interesting
to see what comes out of it.
Fra
|
| 600.14 | More on the VT hearings | SKIVT::WENER | | Thu Feb 08 1990 08:19 | 55 |
|
To all Vt interested parties, I also attended an "invitation only"
forum regarding the deer herd. It was last night, so while things
are still fresh in my mind, I'll mention a few things the F&W is
considering and what some of the key issues are:
- Extremely strong support from all parties to keep any future
antlerless hunting OUT of the regular deer season (and the Dept
is also in support of this)
- Strong support (even from the Legislature) to provide antlerless
tags to muzzle hunters and to provide a second successful tag to
bowhunters for an antlerless deer only.
- Support for a "No-priority" system for issuing permits, you
are placed in a lottery and what you get is what you get; No
landowner priority anymore either. This landowner thing was
very strong because it was felt by many that the 25 acres
required was too low, and that many landowners who would receive
a permit would not shoot their doe (if they even used the permit)
on their own land. Also large landowners were cited as posting
everything but the 25 acres necessary to receive the permit (not
sure if this is true).
- Habitat improvement was key issue and they are considering an
organized attempt at getting volunteers out to do some cutting,
etc...
- Also at issue was the condition of the VT deer yards and increasing
development trends. Strong support from all on restricting a
landowners use (i.e. cutting softwoods) from a known deer yard.
However, there is a catch-22 here in that some landowners felt
that if they can't do what they want with their land "then nobody
will use it" and therefore it will be posted etc....
- In connection with the landowner postings, many there saw the
hunters as "their own worst enemy" in that today it is common
practice for hunters to lease out a farmers land to hunt in
return for having it posted to keep others off. This was
seen as elitist and that the eventual outcome may be that only
the rich will be able to aford to hunt someday. (it's also not
good for human relations because the rise in posted land is seen
negatively by the anti's and the non-hunters) as in "the land's
getting all posted, those hunters must be doing something wrong"
- And finally (but not leastly) We got to get our shit together
as hunters and somehow affirm with ourselves that proper
conduct is necessary in the field if we expect to continue
hunting. We're getting (got), as a group, a bad reputation
and we need to change this, especially when it comes to landowner
relations.
|
| 600.15 | God help this State | BTOVT::ALEXANDER | | Thu Feb 08 1990 13:28 | 11 |
| Rob, I can give you names of many landowners that WILL post their land
if the State decides to go to a total lottery system. They would much
rather keep their land open, thus insuring themselves a permit, than
having someone else shoot a doe on their land. I WON'T HESTITATE!!
As far a the State having control over the landowner cutting, this is
pure ignorance. There has to be some cutting involved to promote new
growth. Mature softwoods void of new growth will not winter over deer.
Hope the "invitation only" crowd get their heads out of their you know
what and think about what they are proposing.
|
| 600.16 | You're not going to post.... Are You? | SKIVT::WENER | | Thu Feb 08 1990 14:07 | 23 |
|
Joe,
This meeting was a result of many larger, public gatherings
that were open to everyone who might have a say. They plan several
more when the final plan is brought out. I agree with you on cutting
out some of the big mature stuff, but the way the bioligists look at
deer yards is different. The deer go there more for protection, but
there should be food close by. What the bioligists are mostly
concerned with is strip cutting softwoods that are known deer yarding
areas. I might have worded some of that wrong in my previous note.
As for the total lottery system, they want to keep it out of the
regular deer season to prevent abuse. Whether it works or not remains
to be seen, but they feel it will be much better than what was done
before. Maybe they'll end up with a 2-3 day "doe" hunt after the
regular season.
keep your ears open for next series of meetings and tell them
what you think. The ideas that were discussed were from general
consensus of over 1700 questionaire's. The questionaire's are
what they'll use when they go to the legislature....
- Rob
|
| 600.17 | Who needs Antis??? | KNGBUD::DAOUST | | Thu Feb 08 1990 15:31 | 13 |
| RE:.15
Joe What does this gain you if they go to a total lottery??If you post
your land it still wont gaurantee you a doe permit...You will just be
depriving other hunters who are/should all be fighting for the same
right to hunt from hunting on land they may have hunted in previous years.
Not to mention this is a lame attitude; "well if I dont get a doe permit
i'll be damned if any body else is going to hunt my land"...Even
though it never bothered you in the past when people where hunting for
bucks...
my $.02 worth red
|
| 600.18 | Everyone's got a voice... | BTOVT::REMILLARD_K | | Thu Feb 08 1990 15:49 | 13 |
|
Joe and Rob,
The meeting I went to was a bit different. They did not talk about the
"total lottery" for antlerless hunting. It's definetly going to be up
to the majority, or who screams the loudest. Joe you seem to be
screaming, doing it in this note isn't going to help any. Get your
head out of your, you know what, and dial the phone, or write a letter.
Don't suggest that this process is a waste and no good when you haven't
even been involved. Sit back and let it happen, and it will. Just my
$1.99 worth.
Kevin
|
| 600.19 | lend me a deaf ear | KNGBUD::LAFOSSE | | Thu Feb 08 1990 15:57 | 25 |
| RE:.15
In regards to your reply concerning permits... Its a shame that you
feel this way. This seems to be the attitude of many residents in VT.
Sort of like "if I can't have it my way, i'm taking my ball and going
home!"
A major reason many non-residents no longer hunt in your state is due
to posting and ignorance of the F&W to forsee problems caused by
catering to residents.
I've been hunting in VT for over 12 years now spending $50-85 a year
for the priviledge to do so. I enjoy it and hope to for many more
years to come... If locals feel that resident license sales can
totally support the states fish and game programs, then continue to
post your property and you won't have to worry bout someone taking that
doe off your land. The F&W will be operating so far in the red, the
legislature will step in and then you can kiss your hunting goodbye.
Its really a shame some residents feel like its a right to be able to
hunt... when in reality its a priviledge every hunter pays for.
Permits??? Those are just frosting on the cake!!!
Fra
|
| 600.20 | More on Doe hunting | SKIVT::WENER | | Fri Feb 09 1990 06:32 | 21 |
|
Also, to be a little clearer enough on the lottery..
If they do what everyone wants (from the q's), They will issue permits
to be used during the December muzzleloader season. That just means
that the few muzzleloaders out there will probably have plenty of
permits to go around, but that the number of muzzle hunters will
probably grow in number. It still means, however, that the permit
will be issued for a particular DMU, and if a landowner priority
was still given, he'd still have to use a muzzleloader.
Also, from looking at the growing amount of Posted land in the
state, people thought that the incentive wasn't really working???
I also know of several landowners who don't care about the priority
system because there of the type that dont believe in shooting a doe
period, thus, nobody hunts there.... I guess you can't make everyone
happy.
One reality is the deer herd of the 60's was a mistake and
should not have happened. If permits had been issued so that the
numbers could have been controlled back then, we probably wouldn't
be going through all this now.
|
| 600.21 | In Morgan | SSDEVO::BOURBEAU | | Fri Feb 09 1990 09:22 | 6 |
| I talked with my brother on the phone last night, and he tells me
that his land, and where we're going to hunt is in Morgan, near Derby,
Orleans county. He says it's not far from the Canadian border.
Is anyone familiar with the area??
George
|
| 600.22 | Don't hang me yet | BTOVT::ALEXANDER | | Fri Feb 09 1990 11:39 | 33 |
| Easy now guys, let me try to explain what my feelings are on this
matter. As stated in .14 by Rob, there is a strong feel that " land-
owners will post everything except 25 acres". You cannot break up your
land like that unless it is(your land) is deeded into several parcels.
There is too much posting as it is today and I feel that by putting the
landowner in the lottery system will cause more land to be posted.
Yes, it is the attitude "If I don't get a permit why should someone
else be allowed to take a doe off my land". Under the present
condition, if your land is posted, you cannot apply for a permit with
the exception of of Hunting By Permission Only. I do not post my land
and I don't intent to in the future. I am a hunter and fisherman,
always have been and always will be, until those privileges are taken
away from me by the State.
The landowners in this state are already feeling trapped by the
laws governing their land, lets not enact new laws placing further
restrictions on them. Don't forget, property taxes are not cheap
these days. There is no gain for the landowner by placing everyone
in the total lottery system (if that is the intent) only a loss. Pay
the taxes, keep it open for someone else to benifit!! Sorry but
this is not just me feelings as I have talked to several of my
neighbors about the situation and they have the same "attitude".
Oh by the way, my neighbors are avid hunters, born and raised in
Vt. and their land is currently open to the public.
Where did the questionair orginate from? The first I ever heard
about it was in Rob's note. Perhaps the state should have sent one to
all license holders or at least been made available at time of
purchase. I am not against hunting and I believe in what the state
is trying to accomplish with the deer herd. I am just tired of handing
more and more money to the state and getting nothing back but more
restrictions.
|
| 600.23 | still time to write... | BTOVT::REMILLARD_K | | Mon Feb 12 1990 12:05 | 30 |
|
re .22
Joe, I think I can answer a few of your questions. The infamous
questionairre came from the 1990-1995 Draft Deer Management Plan.
You either had to ask for one (call the F&G dept.) or attend one of
the public forums. I happened to see the advertisement in the paper,
it was also on the radio etc., I'm certain a lot of interested people
didn't hear about this though. By the way, they only printed like
3,000 copies of the plan, the demand far exceeded the supply, so I was
told.
Personally I find it unfortunate that people are against the priority
system. In fact I asked to have it expanded, first to landowners, then
to permanent liscense holders and minors, residents, and than
non-residents (with the amount being equal to the % of non-resident
liscenses purchased). I agree with you 100% about the landowner
loosing rights or privelages or whatever with his land, now they're
talking about regulating cutting in deer yards (which is good IMO), but
how are we going to get the landowner to agree if there's no incentive?
Not every landowner is a hunter or conservationist. The priority
system is the smallest amount of compenstation we can provide to the
landowner, I'd hate to see it go away. We will see more posted land if
no priority is given.
By the way, you're not hanging yet....just look, your feet are still on
the stool... ;^)
Kevin
|
| 600.24 | Who's hung... | SKIVT::WENER | | Tue Feb 13 1990 09:57 | 43 |
|
The final draft is due out at the end of this month, the major
changes should be in the recommended harvest levels. Yes, and like
both of you I too agree that there should be some incentive for the
landowner to keep his/her land open. There's a lot up in the air
about the ways to attack the problems, by listening to Hunters,
they're also just listening to one side. They need to listen to
the landowners as well. Most hunters are concerned with open land,
herd quality, and herd numbers. Right now we have just one of those:
herd quality. Open, quality, and huntable land is a major concern
and I just wanted to bring out some of the things I heard at the
meeting. Landowner relations is a key conponent of the land issues,
and we need not make things worse for the landowner, and I think
the meeting addressed that (whether or not I worded things correctly in
here).
Some other possibilities that were mentioned but that I forgot to
include is that they may just continue with the priority system, but
that they may not hand out free permits (the dept. needs the $$).
As for the logging off of known deer yards, if the deer yards are
stripped off (like what's happening in Yellow Bogs as we write) ,
say goodbye to the deer herd in VT if we get a hard winter again.
Big bucks $$ talk and the hunters/conservationists/outdoorspeople
get it shoved up their ass. I agree that it may take a long time for
any of this to happen (if it ever does). The real dilemma is the
changing face of the state due to the increasing development. I
support some type of incentive for a landowner (tax break, whatever)
to help them with this deer yard issue. I don't know about you Joe,
but I think you can agree that it's not the small farmer that'll end
up raping VT, it'll be the one he sells to - the big time developers.
If you had a chance to read any of the newspaper articles regarding
southview at Stratton when they wanted to develop a deeryard you'd
see what I'm really talking about (and what lots of others in the
meeting were talking about). It'll make your blood boil...
Bottom line is that nobody wants to really piss off the farmers.
There was a consensus by the hunters/landowners that we should provide
some type of kickback to the farmers/large land holders to protect the
deer yards.
- Rob
|
| 600.25 | landowners, then the rest | SA1794::CHARBONND | What a pitcher! | Thu Feb 15 1990 14:52 | 16 |
| I'm not against the landowners getting priority, but as for
the balance going to permanent license holders, and residents,
I don't like it.
Give the landowners a break, for sure, but as for the rest,
put them in the lottery. The permanent license holders are
probably retirees with plenty of time to hunt for bucks.
The non-residents have limited time, and this combined with
an effective ZERO chance of drawing a permit makes for a lot
of disgruntled hunters. The resident hunters already benefit
from a relatively inexpensive license fee.
Here in Mass. everybody goes into the lottery. Period. There
are provisions for farmers to take deer on their own land.
It isn't perfect, but a non-resident has as good a chance as
a resident to draw a permit.
|
| 600.26 | Some views from left field | BTOVT::RIVERS_D | | Fri Feb 16 1990 08:20 | 73 |
|
Re: .23
>>There was a consensus by the hunters/landowners that we should
>>provide some type of kickback to the farmers/large landholders
>>to protect the deeryards.
I agree, but lets extend the kickback (whether it be a doe permit
or monetary) for the ones who leave their land open also! I dis-
agree with mandates which force farmers/landowners to leave deer
yards intact. That WILL piss them off. Think about the farmers
for a minute. They've been hurt by the whole herd buyout, low
milk prices, rising feed prices, gov't mandates, etc. Now some
yo-yo from the state comes to him and says he can't cut down his
own trees. Boy, those prices the developers are offering for his
land are really starting to look pretty good. Next thing you you
know, there are condos where your treestand used to be. See, it's
not as cut and dried as "Pass a law so he can't clear cut his
deeryard". No, mandates will only piss 'em off. Maybe we could
educate them in proper deeryard management, and trust them to do
the right thing. Maybe both sides can win.
Re: .20
>>Also, from looking at the growing amount of posted land in the
>>state, people thought that the incentive wasn't really working.
Maybe, maybe not. What happens if, when they pull the incentives
from the landowners, the amount of posted land triples!! Maybe the
incentives are delaying the inevitable.
Re: .18
>>Don't suggest that this process is a waste...
Kind of putting words in Joe's mouth aren't you, Kevin? He hasn't
even implied this. He just disagrees with a few of your views,
whether they be right or wrong.
Re: "VT Dept of F&W operating in the red"
Some of the reasons for this are....For years, the license holders
footed the bill for the state non-game program. Something that
everyone benefits from, not just the hunters/fishermen. This has
recently been corrected. Along the same lines, license holders
are paying for ACT 250 activities (doing environmental impact
studies when developers want to put up condos or shopping malls),
Done by F&W personnel. Just one way Madeline Kunin keeps the
state's budget down, even though the whole state benefits.
General remarks......
Raising resident license fees won't help much. The large majority
of F&W dept's operating revenue comes from non-resident license
monies. They should give non-resident sportsmen incentives to hunt
here...like a chance at doe permits once in a while.
Kevin, you've got quite a chip on your shoulder about game wardens.
I know there are some jerks, and they seem to follow you around,
but some of them are downright helpful. I'd hate to have an atti-
tude like your's about something that plays such an important part
of my favorite hobby.
'Nuff for now. That should liven things up. Have a good weekend
all.
Dave
|
| 600.27 | Stirring that Pot again, huh? | BTOVT::WENER_R | | Fri Feb 16 1990 12:07 | 47 |
|
Ha, Ha, Ha, Dave, you must've taken lessons from John Peters....
I guess I'm a dreamer Dave, but what the heck. The 'olden' days of
having loads of huntable land are gone forever to be sure. Let's
talk about population control... :') just kidding.
All joking aside, yes, in todays real world there's no choice but
to help the large landholders which in VT, is primarily lumbering
and farmers (aside from State & Federal forest land). And don't
misconstrue my thing about Cutting. Cutting is very good, in the
right places, and if it's done cooperatively between the landowners
and some wildlife mgmt experts, both can benefit. I also agree
that incentives are better than punishments (as most laws are based).
There is something wrong with communications in this state if the
game bioligists say there are too many deer and doe's need to be
harvested and the landowners post their land because they think there
are no deer (which is not what you're saying, but along those lines).
I think the idea behind the "no priority" thing is to give EVERYONE
an equal shot at a permit, nonresidents, resident landowners, resident
"just hunters", young 'uns, etc... It has good intentions if you
consider the nonresident's point of view, etc...
I'll go out on a limb and say that for a person to post his/her
land "just because he/she couldn't get priority for a permit" is a
bad excuse and is being negative. By that I'd like to say to those:
"what is the REAL problem ?" is it because you don't want someone
taking "your" deer. The deer are owned by the state anyway,
so legally they're everyone's! That fact in conjunction with posted
land is Bull*&^% because if they're everyone's, how come only a few get
the chance to hunt for them and a landowner has the right to kick you
off for any and all reasons ( as in some posted property). So the
state manages the herd, and we can hunt half of it.
The real problem as I see it is in these inconsistancies on who
has what privelege or right to do whatever. Hunters lose the chance
to hunt posted land, and the landowner loses the chance to do what
he/she wants to do with their land. They could solve a lot of problems
if they just made it so that those deer that are on your property
are yours and you can do what you want with them. I'm not sure I like
that Idea though.... Then it'll be only the rich who can afford to
go to a game farm and hunt....
Oh well, Dave, off my soapbox for now, it's friday and I should go
Ice fishing this weekend and relax... :') see ya, Rob
|
| 600.28 | Yup...it's Friday. | BTOVT::REMILLARD_K | | Fri Feb 16 1990 12:32 | 23 |
|
re .26
Your poor farmer argument really stinks. That's a whole subject in its
own right, not one to be discussed here.
Actually Joe and I agree on the subject, I was just a little miffed by
the comment about "all you invitation people better get your head out
of....". To me that is just simply a cop out. I thought that's what
I said, and Joe didn't question me, so why are you?
About wardens, actually I have the utmost regard for most of them. I
don't feel like they're following me around, I just don't like the
"selective" enforcement that a few of them I know use. We don't know
you so we're going to bust you kind of attitude...you know what I mean.
Dave, I thought you knew me better than the last paragraph of your
reply suggests. If my views are that much of a discomfort to you, we
should discuss it.
Kevin
|
| 600.29 | back at ya, while its still friday | BTOVT::RIVERS_D | | Fri Feb 16 1990 14:53 | 34 |
| Re. 28
>>Your poor farmer argument really stinks. That's a whole subject in its
>>own right, not one to be discussed here.
Kevin, don't tell me it stinks....Tell me why you think it stinks.
Think about it. The government says "We'll buy you out if you agree
not to dairy for the next 5 years. Try to find a new agricultural
business to run on your land." Then they say "Oh, by the way, don't
cut your trees either." Then they pressure them NOT to sell their
land to developers. My only point....and I believe I stated it as
such.....is that the issue is not as cut-and-dried as some would like
to believe. If I didn't come across that way, I apologize.
>>About wardens, actually I have the utmost regard for most of them. I
>>don't feel like they're following me around, I just don't like the
>>"selective" enforcement that a few of them I know use. We don't know
>>you so we're going to bust you kind of attitude...you know what I mean.
>>Dave, I thought you knew me better than the last paragraph of your
>>reply suggests. If my views are that much of a discomfort to you, we
>>should discuss it.
Here you are saying a "few". Back a coupla notes you used the term
"most". If I was an outa-stater and didn't know you like I do, and
I read your previous replies, I would have a somewhat negative
attitude about Vt's wardens. I just don't want anyone to get the
impression that most wardens are "hanging judges". Maine's wardens
have been given this label in another conference, and I don't think
it's appropriate in Vt (is it?).
|
| 600.30 | not worth losing a friendship over guys | KNGBUD::LAFOSSE | | Fri Feb 16 1990 15:16 | 81 |
| I have a little bit I'd like to say in regards to posted land... FWIW
I am a member (10 hunters) in a hunting club in S. Woodstock, which has
been in existence for well over 40 years... We hunt on private land and
any abutting land which is not posted.
For reasons I have no time to go into (hatfield/mccoy fued) the farmer
where we hunt, who has generously given us a place to stay; posts his
land, as well as a couple of other abutting farms, which we have access
to.
Now while I will be the first to admit that having exclusive rights to
some prime whitetail habitat is excellent, it is also nothing more than
an agravation and a big pain in the ass! The following reasons are
why.
1. the club pays for the posters $200 a year.
2. the club puts up the posters. (takes 4, 2 man teams 2 days to do)
3. the club pays for the registering of the land to post it.
Things we do just to help out: sugaring in the spring (weekends)
toughest work you could ever imagine, bucking hay, fence repair,
stringing sap lines, milking cows... etc... We have a special
relationship with this man (he's attended the members weddings,
anniversaries etc...) and after 40 years you do things just because.
Now you might say this is a small price to pay for exclusive rights,
and normally I would agree, but there are some drawbacks you can't
possibly imagine.
1. People still disobey the posters and hunt it anyway.
2. Hard to actually throw people off (they may be a guest of the
farmer) and if so you don't want to piss the farmer off.
3. They may lie and say "Russ said it was ok" only to find out he
didn't.
4. His son has friends who hunt it... different people every year.
5. Your sitting quietly for a couple of hours when someone comes
strolling by who shouldn't be there... do you climb down out of
your treestand and throw him off, or just sit still and hope he
kicks something your way? (he may be a guest you don't know)
6. Its a daily occurance to have to throw someone off or to see someone
who shouldn't be there. (4 of 10 members have the opportunity to
throw someone off daily)
7. Locals ignore them... locals!!! and they get arrogant about it!
One year we had a local poach a doe on posted land and tell us to
"F**K OFF" when we asked him who he was... turned him in, 5 year
license suspension.
Personally i'd rather not have them, but it's not my decision to
make... the Farmer wants them and we do as he asks. I would assume
by posting his land he has voided himself from a doe permit in previous
years.
Its a damn shame, cause if people just asked, he would be mare than
happy to let them hunt certain areas we don't usually hunt, where he
could "keep an eye on em, so to speak".
In the old haydays, before my time up there, every farmer in the area
(and friends) got together on opening morning (stories of 30-40 guys)
and drove areas you would never think of driving, and were extremely
successful.... fueding neighbors put an end to that real quick...
He's in his retirement years and an end to the club is near at hand,
when his uncle and aunt die, he'll probably sell off.. and why not?
as someone has already said, low milk prices, skyrocketing taxes,
can't keep/afford to keep a good hired hand etc... $$$ from developers
sure looks nice.
Incentives to large (farmers) landowners? absolutly!!!! for not
posting and added incentives for not cutting... or selective cutting
to increase browse!
Incentives to owners of 25 acres? no! incentives for non residents????
The State needs to do something to get them to come back... not
necessarily a guaranteed doe permit, but the opportunity to have as
good a chance as anyone else.
sorry for rambling!
Fra
|
| 600.31 | I never said "most"... | BTOVT::REMILLARD_K | | Mon Feb 19 1990 12:41 | 33 |
|
Dave,
I think you have completely missed what I meant about wardens, I said,
"most wardens I know would have given the big citation", and I won't
back off that statement. We're talking about a guy who shot a deer out
of season, granted the book was printed, but the disclaimer about new
laws exists....most wardens I know would have ticketed the
guy...whether it makes sense to you/me makes no difference. I know of
a guy who had in his posession a doe tag, came upon a dead doe
(apparently it was obvious it was left there), tagged it, reported it -
but made the mistake of mentioning how he found it to the reporting
station. Guess what happenend? He lost the doe, his tag, and was
given a stern lecture and threatened with a fine etc. Because by the
letter of the law, what he did was illegal. The only game you can
claim is the game that you have shot, like it or not. There is a
distinct analogy here. It goes on and on...I know a guy who lost his
hunting/fishing liscence and payed a fine for wrong information in the
book as well. Similar story, dates had changed for fishing something
or other, he was ticketed for fishing out of season...the only
deduction I can make from these experiences is that most wardens will
issue tickets according to the letter of the law. That's the way it's
suppose to be anyway, if there's a question plead innocent and talk to
the states attorney.
I like the reasonalbe attitudes, and believe we need to give the
wardens more freedom (if they don't have it) to make some judgement on
the information they have. I apologize for running on about this.
Kevin
|
| 600.32 | I got it! | SSDEVO::BOURBEAU | | Mon Feb 19 1990 13:23 | 5 |
| Bruce, I got the info pacakge last Thursday. Thanks a lot.
Thanks a lot.
George
|
| 600.33 | this'll get you going | BTOVT::RIVERS_D | | Mon Jun 18 1990 13:38 | 22 |
| >> I'm planning on hunting deer in Vermont with my brother in the fall
>> (1990). I live in Colorado. What do I need to know about Vermont
>> hunting? Do I need a Vermont hunter/safety course? How much is an
>> out of state license? Are the dates for the season set yet? What
>> am I forgetting?
>> Regards,
>> George
George,
Here's a tidbit of information you may want to know.....The VT Fish &
Wildlife dept sent out a report last week in which they said that they
expect a 10% increase in the deer kill for the 1990 firearms season,
over last years kill which was the highest in 8 years! Judging by the
number of deer I've seen lately I'd say that they are right on.
Good luck!
Dave
|