Perfect example... arguement of one stance vs. the other.
Bowhunters don't kill the deer, guys who would have, or normally hunt with guns buy bows, start hunting with bows - and kill a small amount of deer in areas that gun hunters usually get their pick of the herd, or are used to being able to do so. If you could find the 250 hunters between the 3 zones, figure out there harvest I think you would find it'd be next to nill. (might even be an understatement.) The harvest would have been, or would be the same either way.
Those hunts you speak of on wild TV paint a pretty false picture, all these guys buying bows, all 250 of them whom you claim to see in your zones up there are not just crawling out into farmer Joe's field and deflating a mulie. It's not as easy as take 30 out of 31 to get a piece of film for a show.
Pretty easy for SRD to collect the data also, other than using a draw allocation as a "maximum" guideline.
For example is a MANDATORY timeline for applying for draw - yes. Hunter's don't forget to do this... or they
don't get drawn, and lose all priority.
Simple.
How about a simple idea to monitor harvest accurately... keep it simple. EI.
If a hunter harvests a deer, moose, elk, or whatever the case may be - he or she simply has 15 days after the close of the season to present the licence for the species and sex (a set of nuts, udder) - whatever the case may be.
If he or she
doesn't do this... they are then
not entitled to hunt the next year. Simple.
A couple extra salaries and a computer or 2, they could easily acheive this. Sh*t, they spent an unpublished amount on a totally 100% cull of mulies, you'd think something that makes sense could be done, within reason of course.
I've upped my amount of stupidness, after eggo's last 4 or so posts - I might be even 17 or 19% stupider for reading this thread.
