Concerned hunters regarding unlimited doe harvesting

[tcook8296]

How will Tonkas law end private land hunting?

If you mean back yard hunting, absolutely done.

[dlist777]

How will Tonkas law end private land hunting?

If you mean back yard hunting, absolutely done.

Read the other thread.  The current law as worded requires you to notify all adjacent properties in writing and all adjacent properties to them before hunting private land.  Furthermore, this requirement is not limited small properties.  Google it.  It's hard to imagine many landowners giving permission to hunt with this onerous requirement in place.  

 

 2.    (New section)  a.  A person who hunts, takes, or kills wildlife, or permits hunting, taking, or killing of wildlife on private property owned by the person shall provide written notice, at least 24 hours in advance, that hunting, taking, or killing of wildlife will occur on the property, including the date, time, and duration thereof, to:  (1) both the owner and occupant of each property sharing a boundary with the property on which the hunting, taking, or killing of wildlife will occur, and (2) both the owner and occupant of each property sharing a boundary with the property that shares a boundary with the property on which the hunting, taking, or killing of wildlife will occur.

Edited December 18, 2017 by dlist777

[Tarhunt]

Just because your zone may have unlimited antlerless hunting, doesn't mean that you have to shoot unlimited antlerless deer. Just common sense. I guess common sense isn't so common these days. We are our own worst enemy.

[Woodsman416]

Nothing will change if F&G has to give up any revenue. Most guys I know buy an archery permit and buck tag, shotgun permit and buck tag, muzzleloader permit and buck tag. That's $168.00 in permits! Plus AA license. Plus rifle permit. Many guys buy more than one zone. F&G won't give up a dime.

[JHbowhunter]

Nothing will change if F&G has to give up any revenue. Most guys I know buy an archery permit and buck tag, shotgun permit and buck tag, muzzleloader permit and buck tag. That's $168.00 in permits! Plus AA license. Plus rifle permit. Many guys buy more than one zone. F&G won't give up a dime.

 

agree they need their revenue, but they need to separate from bag limits and quotas. Those must be per hunter, per year.  There is a way to do it where everyone wins

[Lunatic]

well? Going to two flexible buck tags is not unreasonable, so long as no APRs or other antler size limits are attached to it, and it doesn't cost any more, I can live with it seems fair, where I take umbrage is when others say I should go to Shop rite for meat rather than see me shoot a spike! Lol, I don't know if you've seen the price of beef these days, but it's pricy, and for the cost of a license I can supply myself with good quality organic meat. In fact Venison IS very nearly all the red meat I eat, and typically I would need 2-3 per year, as I am one of the guys that eats it 4-5 nights a week.

 

What really needs to happen is that F&W needs to be independent from the DEP, with sole athority over our natural resources, and be apolitical, in that science based management be used, but we all know that won't happen! Lol

 

Right now the management goal is for reduction, and it's needed in places like Zones 13 and 36, but there is no public land there,

 

This is a problem that's not at all easy to solve, and in this political climate, may well be impossible.

 

I need to hear your explanation why do you need APR if we limit to let say two bucks? It is about the numbers of bucks we kill, not the size of their antlers. If the guy is happy with a button buck to burn his buck tag than why not? 

 

I am with you on the meat part. Food is the main reason I hunt and that's the origin of hunting. So yes it does burn my a55 when a bone collector tells me to buy my food in the store.

[Lunatic]

Just because your zone may have unlimited antlerless hunting, doesn't mean that you have to shoot unlimited antlerless deer. Just common sense. I guess common sense isn't so common these days. We are our own worst enemy.

 

 

I also wonder how they are shooting so many does if there are no deer in the area. Many areas hold no deer because of bad habitat and lack of food. They moved to a better pasture.  

[Septicdude]

I also wonder how they are shooting so many does if there are no deer in the area. Many areas hold no deer because of bad habitat and lack of food. They moved to a better pasture.

 

I guess that pasture is the one in hunting tonight...i just got in and there's a heard of 10 does on the far end. It's nothing to see 30 to 40 does here a night. Zone 10 btw I don't agree with the unlimited doe harvest thing but that's not gunna change it's up to us as hunters to have control of ourselves to not go and kill all the deer shooting does is like drinking....only in moderation and only what you can handle

[Bones]

I would be ok with limit bucks such as 2 or 3 per year and a number on doe say 5

Also 3 horns on one side state wide if it's not state wide.

I'm a meat hunter I don't eat beef unless I have a bad hunting season or I'm at a restaurant,

My family and I eat on average 5 deer a year I like to have my freezer full by the end of January which is about 3 or 4 deer

January allows me to catch up and take a few doe that I would have passed up trying to get a decent buck during bow season.

just my opinion but I don't get hunters helping hungry I don't get killing deer just to give it away unless your helping a farmer with deer populations or its road kill I was raised if you kill it you eat it.

[Haskell_Hunter]

Nothing will change if F&G has to give up any revenue. Most guys I know buy an archery permit and buck tag, shotgun permit and buck tag, muzzleloader permit and buck tag. That's $168.00 in permits! Plus AA license. Plus rifle permit. Many guys buy more than one zone. F&G won't give up a dime.

 

 

agree they need their revenue, but they need to separate from bag limits and quotas. Those must be per hunter, per year.  There is a way to do it where everyone wins

 

The reality in Trenton is this:  Licensing is the most significant part of that department's budget.  If you affect that revenue, you will significantly restrict what that department can do.  NJ politicians will not fund the department, and based on NJ's current financial status, they won't be able to into the future.

 

So whatever system you put in place must generate the same license revenue.

 

The second factor to take into consideration are the impact on incentive for people to hunt in NJ with those changes.  Dept makes a lot of money from out of staters who want to fill freezers.  A buddy of mine from NH is planing on going to Zone 14 to bring home 4-5 does.  So the state is attracting a lot of out of staters to buy permits.  If we decrease bag limits and increase costs to those folks, that will drive demand for those permits to go down.  It's lost revenue.

 

This is just as much of a business decision as it is a management decision, and always, always, always, the almighty dollar will prevail.

 

As I mentioned in other posts, I'd love to do a financial analysis on whatever best plan we can come up with.  If we can find a revenue sweet spot in an improved management plan, then that's something we can sell.

[3Blade]

The reality in Trenton is this:  Licensing is the most significant part of that department's budget.  If you affect that revenue, you will significantly restrict what that department can do.  NJ politicians will not fund the department, and based on NJ's current financial status, they won't be able to into the future.

 

So whatever system you put in place must generate the same license revenue.

 

The second factor to take into consideration are the impact on incentive for people to hunt in NJ with those changes.  Dept makes a lot of money from out of staters who want to fill freezers.  A buddy of mine from NH is planing on going to Zone 14 to bring home 4-5 does.  So the state is attracting a lot of out of staters to buy permits.  If we decrease bag limits and increase costs to those folks, that will drive demand for those permits to go down.  It's lost revenue.

 

This is just as much of a business decision as it is a management decision, and always, always, always, the almighty dollar will prevail.

 

As I mentioned in other posts, I'd love to do a financial analysis on whatever best plan we can come up with.  If we can find a revenue sweet spot in an improved management plan, then that's something we can sell.

 

I agree with what you are saying so then how will this jive with Tonksa law? If that law goes through Trenton can kiss goodbye the revenue from license sales.

[Deerslayer21]

The reality in Trenton is this:  Licensing is the most significant part of that department's budget.  If you affect that revenue, you will significantly restrict what that department can do.  NJ politicians will not fund the department, and based on NJ's current financial status, they won't be able to into the future.

 

So whatever system you put in place must generate the same license revenue.

 

The second factor to take into consideration are the impact on incentive for people to hunt in NJ with those changes.  Dept makes a lot of money from out of staters who want to fill freezers.  A buddy of mine from NH is planing on going to Zone 14 to bring home 4-5 does.  So the state is attracting a lot of out of staters to buy permits.  If we decrease bag limits and increase costs to those folks, that will drive demand for those permits to go down.  It's lost revenue.

 

This is just as much of a business decision as it is a management decision, and always, always, always, the almighty dollar will prevail.

 

As I mentioned in other posts, I'd love to do a financial analysis on whatever best plan we can come up with.  If we can find a revenue sweet spot in an improved management plan, then that's something we can sell.

 Agree with this 100%  Haskell Hunter !!!   This state is all about the money and nothing will change if they cant make their money.    

[anthonyap]

Based on everyones comments it sounds like we are all on the same page. We need to politely voice this to Fish & Game and do what it takes to get these regulations changed to save our future. If not changed we need to band together and shoot only what we need to keep the deer herd healthy and thriving for many years to come.

[hunterdan199]

Not this shit again this topic has been beating more then a crack whore who owes her pimp money .

 

 

Every year same thread nothing ever changes. , nothing to see here move on.

 

 

Cause in the end it's the hunters killing the deer not the state last time I checked .

[Haskell_Hunter]

I agree with what you are saying so then how will this jive with Tonksa law? If that law goes through Trenton can kiss goodbye the revenue from license sales.

 

Oh, it has everything to do with it.  Ladybird lit this fire in my brain earlier today.

 

Lesniak is on the economic committee.  There's ample evidence that the economic opportunities in NJ are fleeting, and most businesses are fleeing NJ.  Our economic opportunities are in decline.  So he's largely been ineffective in his position.  He knows nothing about economics.

 

A demonstration of this lack of fundamental understanding is that his legislation will most definitely have an adverse economic impact on the state.  The dept is funded by that revenue, and the taxpayers have shown no interest in picking up the tab.  All it would mean in another tax increase, which will have a negative impact on the state economy.

 

I think that needs to be highlighted.  Why is this idiot, who should be focused on improving the NJ economy, doing things that will adversely affect it and the wildlife in this state?

 

It's all about the money, so let's focus on the money.  The money taxpayers will have less of and the government is going to take more of.  And the moron who is supposed to be fixing this problem.