Do we really WANT more hunters?

[reagorfu]

i agree, more hunters helps in the long run.

 

[tjones96761]

I saw a few posts about "we the hunters" as a group, but I don't know about any formal organization protecting/promoting hunters rights/opinions. If there is something like that I would join. Or I would like someone to start an organization that would let our voices be heard (think work union). I would like an age/point restriction or penalty fee for bucks. also an increase in license/tag prices to help management and maybe deture some of those "cityboys"

 

[ahlosojoe]

As has been stated hunting and fishing are involved in politics just like everything else. When the polititions see that we have lost our clout and value as voters they will have even less to do with us than they do now. More hunters and fishermen mean more votes that gets attention.

 

[dennishoddy]

One thing about the Ok dept of wild life, they don't accept any funds from the tax payers. They operate on the license fees that we pay, the Pittman Robertson Act, and accept any donations from QU, TU, DU, QF, PF, and all the other organizations that promote wildlife in the state. They also recieve land and money from peoples estates that have willed them to the department.
Those people put in a lot of time to make sure that those of us who are ethical hunters, and people that fish resposibily, Get a shot at taking wild game.

That being said; I would like to see the ODW try to get lands like they do in KS for a walk-in area. http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/Ot...Landowner-Assistance/Wildlife/Walk-in-Hunting
They have done that in the past some what with leasing areas around Tulsa and OKC, but have neglected the rest of the state. I don't know why they quit doing the dove hunts, I'm suspecting money, but don't know.

All I know is that the ODW is doing the best they can with the money they have. Our money.

 

[tjones96761]

I saw a few posts about "we the hunters" as a group, but I don't know about any formal organization protecting/promoting hunters rights/opinions. If there is something like that I would join. Or I would like someone to start an organization that would let our voices be heard (think work union). I would like an age/point restriction or penalty fee for bucks. also an increase in license/tag prices to help management and maybe deture some of those "cityboys"

how bout a legacy adder in there also. for those of us who buy a license every year, and a permit for every season. that way it doesn't "penalize" true hunters.

 

[jmiller45]

We definately need more hunters. Every year as we gain hunters we also loose hunters. Without gaining new hunters our numbers will dwindle down. I personally invite friends of mine to come with me and obseve and learn what hunting is all about. I've even went with them to their hunter education classes. I also have three children ages 6, 7, & 9 that are learning about hunting and what it means not to kill, but to harvest deer and put food on our table that we worked for. It has been a family tradition for decades in my family and something I couldn't imagine not being in my life. So as the old saying goes.... The more the merrier! Next time you go hunting take a friend and introduce them to a New Way of Life!!!!

 

[ignerntbend]

Is anybody watching the Ken Burns documentary on our national parks?
Teddy Roosevelt seems to have thought that people who didn't hunt were
hardly entitled to citizenship. (a little hyperbole there I think)
People from town need places to hunt too. This isn't Europe.

 

[No.343]

I think that the hunting debate is directly connected to the 2nd ammendment debate. Once people become apathetic about hunting they don't see any need for the 2nd amendment.
I hadn't hunted for about 15 years. A co-worker dragged me duck hunting a couple of years ago and I am having the time of my life. I've been skunked a few times, but absolutely love it. I can't wait to take the babies along in the future.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I think that the hunting debate is directly connected to the 2nd ammendment debate. Once people become apathetic about hunting they don't see any need for the 2nd amendment.

Well, I used to think that, too. And I think it is true for a certain percentage of folks. But the more I live & learn, the less and less I think that percentage is - after seeing so many bubba/fudds who don't give a rip about the 2nd amendment. So in my view, that's a reason but a pretty limited reason to try to expand the ratio of folks who hunt.

 

[bigcountryok]

Well, I used to think that, too. And I think it is true for a certain percentage of folks. But the more I live & learn, the less and less I think that percentage is - after seeing so many bubba/fudds who don't give a rip about the 2nd amendment. So in my view, that's a reason but a pretty limited reason to try to expand the ratio of folks who hunt.

Your either hunting with the wrong people or just noticing it so much because it is rare. In my expereince most hunters are responsible people who do care about their 2nd Amendment rights even if they prefer to bow hunt.