RidgeGhost wrote:Swampbuck wrote:I saw this and I don't care for it for selfish reasons. But I'm guessing the OOS hunting numbers are steadily increasing so to keep the money coming in, yet limit the numbers in the woods they are proposing this. Keeping outfitters off the public land probably wouldn't change things so its either this or just limiting tags overall. They probably figure this provides more money overall to the state and it'll also probably reduce pressure overall. I was going to write them about it when I first saw it but I understand it from that standpoint. I would like to understand the rationale though to determine if its for conservation/hunting quality or politics.
They already limit the number of tags and the state has huge amounts of public land so the hunting should be more spread out compared to what we see in eastern states.
I'll admit I dont fully understand the motivation behind the proposal, but I do understand that my draw odds hit the dirt if it passes. And I refuse to go guided as long as I'm able bodied enough to do my own thing.
Agreed, the pressure seemed higher this year so I was wondering if that played in but the more I think about it the more it seems political. Im in a couple FB groups there and they are ripping it so if the locals are against it too thats enough for me. I'll write them tomorrow