Anyone want my Pronghorn Doe Tag letter?

[badaugherty]

I've always heard all of the land owners are VERY willing to let just about anyone come and shoot them on their land. I've even heard stories of folks getting permission as long as they shoot a couple more for the coyotes. The pronghorn are terrible on fences and the ranchers hate em.

 

[Buzzgun]

Buzz, your judging people is childish and serves no purpose.I myself have had to not go on 2 different Mcallester hunts due to work or family obligations.He may or may not have "bitched" about needing landowner permission for this hunt, but really who care.His thread was an offer for something, like in the classifieds if you don't like something or the price just exit out of the thread and go on.Jeez, I have CNN and MSNBC on my TV but I rarely watch it because I don't agree with it but I don't start chastizing them because "I" don't agree with what they say.

That's funny, according to you, "judging people is childish and serves no purpose", yet you are judging me for judging him! That's a good one!!

Look at the situation.

He admitted that he didn't really care about antelope hunting, but applied anyway.

He didn't read the hunt description, then complained about the rules of the hunt.

He applied for a hunt, drew it, which automatically kept someone else from going, now he wants to throw it away.

It's one thing to have a conflict that is beyond your control, it's another to post what he has posted and then claim he can't go because he has to work. I just don't buy it, I believe he is using that as an excuse because: 1) he doesn't care about hunting a doe, 2) he thinks it's a "rip off" because the wildlife dept doesn't supply him to a place to hunt, 3) he doesn't want to go through the effort to find a place to hunt, 4) he really has absolutely no idea what he is doing and is afraid he won't be able to figure it out.


Why, exactly, do you suppose he offered to give his letter to someone??

Either he is looking for sympathy, or he is offering the letter so someone else can take his place illegally--------yes, I know that's not what he wrote (wink wink, nudge nudge), but, really, what other possible reasons could he have for starting this thread??

Personally, I think if you draw a hunt and don't go, you should have to prove a medical or family emergency prevented you from going, or be banned from applying for 5 years.

It would be one thing if he simply gave up his hunt, but, he kept someone else from going too.


You have a right to express your opinion, and I have a right to express mine if you don't like it, feel free to take your own advice and exit out of the thread!

 

[r00s7a]

Buzzgun, I think you and Doc need to go on a secluded hunt so you two can work out your differences. Ya'll don't be pullin no Brokeback shenanigans either. heh

 

[Buzzgun]

Buzzgun, I think you and Doc need to go on a secluded hunt so you two can work out your differences. Ya'll don't be pullin no Brokeback shenanigans either. heh

Maybe I'm being to tough on him, but I really get irritated at people who draw hunts and then don't show. I really don't care if they hunt, but they are taking the hunt from someone who really wants to go and that's just wrong.

I have been fortunate enough to draw some really good hunts over the years, but my wife has NEVER drawn a single hunt in many years of trying. Granted, we only put in for hunts with extremely good trophy potential, but even those hunts have "no shows"! Can't help but wonder if my wife would have drawn a hunt if one of the no shows, who didn't care enough to show up, had not put in for the hunt!

 

[Jared]

Fortunately its a once in a lifetime draw. Its still one less person applying next year. For the other no-shows they lose points when drawn.

 

[the man]

[Well, I've been on this hunt twice, first as a hunter and second as a "helper" for my father because he was disabled and couldn't get the antelope out once he shot it. And, I also know several others who have been on this hunt. In all instances, we were required to check in with Dept officials at the motel before the hunt and they checked ID, hunting license, selection letter and landowner permission slip before the hunt All this was explained in the letters we received. Maybe it's different for the doe hunts, but I doubt it. ]


I went last year on a buck hunt in Cimarron County. They didn't make us check in before. We did however have to show our drivers lic., hunting lic, and our tag at the check station.

 

[ElkStalkR]

WOW, all this over a antlerless speed goat tag!

If you guys are waiting for years upon years to draw into OK for a lope doe tag your crazy!

Go to Wyoming. $40 non-rez doe tags and plenty of public property with plenty of antelope. Don't wait, just go do it. Seriously stay in a cheap motel or camp. You can shoot a doe or two in a day, maybe two days tops. They aren't hard to hunt. Honestly you won't spend much more than going in Oklahoma. A little more gas money and thats about it.

If your waitin for a buck tag. Wel thats a little different, they do cost a little more in WY.

 

[Buzzgun]

I went last year on a buck hunt in Cimarron County. They didn't make us check in before. We did however have to show our drivers lic., hunting lic, and our tag at the check station.

That is a new procedure then, I stand corrected.

Both times I went, the place was swarming with wardens from all over the state. We were required to meet at the motel on the east end of town the afternoon before the hunt started.

The fuel pump on my truck went out in Enid on my way out to the antelope hunt. I limped the truck to the chevy dealer and let them know that I HAD to be in Boise City by 3:00 pm, 2 hours and $300+ later, I was back on the road. I would have rented a vehicle if necessary, but I was not going to miss the hunt.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Dude, buzzgun, you're way off base. Way, way off. I'm not bitching about it. I'm explaining FACTS. That other thread is over.

No, you aren't just "explaining the facts" that is BS!

So you're calling me a liar. Well fine, so since we're slinging accusations - I'm calling you a liar, and a busybody, and a know-it-all, self-righteous jerk.

What makes the other thread "over"?? You are saying the same "it's not a controlled hunt" thing here as you did there!

It's over because (as I said if you'd READ the thread), I can't go because I have obligations that I don't think I can re-arrange to get out of at this time. And of course I'm stating some of the same things because those are FACTS.

No, wrong. It absolutely, 1000% is NOT a controlled hunt. It's no different than a TAG, as issued by Colo, NM, and any number of other states - it ALLOWS you to hunt. If this is a 'controlled hunt', then every tag issued by every state for every species is also a controlled hunt. If that's the way you want to define 'controlled hunt', then fine. But it's not how 99% of the population defines controlled hunt (as one and the same as "tag").


It IS a controlled hunt, the state limits the number of tags available and you must draw a tag to participate, sorry that you can't comprehend that idea.

No, it's not - you can't comprehend the difference between a tag and a controlled hunt. Explain to me how this is different from a New Mexico elk tag.

Exactly, it's a tag, as you point out - thank you. It's a tag, not a controlled hunt. You make my point. Sure, it's organized under the auspices of the "controlled hunt" program, but it's not a controlled hunt. By definition, a controlled hunt gives you a place to hunt at a specific time and specific location. As far as the way I define it, and 99% of the population. Otherwise, why do we have the word "tag" used in many many states where you always have to draw to hunt, yet no specific place is offered?

How you want to spin it doesn't really matter.

I'm not spinning it; I using the definition that 99.998% of people in America use; not the one that you use, which is to assign the same definition to that of a tag. You even slipped and admitted that it's a tag, not a 'controlled hunt'.

By your definition: "a controlled hunt gives you a place to hunt at a specific time and specific location."

Your tag is issued for either Cimarron Co. or Texas Co. Your tag is good for a specific location, that location just happens to be an entire county, where you hunt within that county is your problem and was explained in the hunt description.

A county is not a specific place; in fact, it's the opposite - a "general area".

As to a specific time, well, you said earlier that the tag is for "Oct 2nd - 10th", there's your specific time.

No, 9 days is not a specific time. That's like a season, just as muzzleloader season is nine days. 1 or 2 days is a specific time; 9 days is not.

I do? Really? Show me where I did that? All I want to do is (hopefully) give another hunter an opportunity to hunt, if the W.D. can make an exception to the non-transferability rule.

By claiming this is not a controlled hunt, you are, in effect, accusing the Wildlife Dept of misrepresenting the hunt.

I didn't say, and you certainly couldn't show me where I did (could you?) - but since you brought it up - they ARE misrepresenting it, in a sense / to a degree, until you read the fine print. They most certainly ought to do a separate 'tag draw', not part of the "controlled hunt" draw, or clearly label it as such. But why are you bringing that up at all? That's not what this thread is about. If you had something more to say when we were discussing that subject, you could have said it then, but you didn't. Why are you trying to make this thread about something which it's not?

What's that got to do with the price of rice in China? That's extremely weak. You might like those canned hunts, but I'd never do one.

I suggested the "canned hunt" because you seem to be so irritated that the Wildlife Dept isn't showing you exactly where to hunt. A canned hunt would solve that problem for you!

Such ridiculous red herrings are proof that you have no leg to stand on with your "argument."

That's what I said above twice. Maybe you should read the thread before posting.

Did you forget where you wrote: "Maybe you could call the department / game warden up there, and see if they'd make an exception for someone, perhaps, on the transferability rule?" So, you say it's not transferable then you say maybe it is?? What is this "transferability rule" you mention??

Dude - Epic basic reading comprehension fail. *I* said: "The rule is X. But maybe you could get an exception to the rule granted." An exception, get it? A variance that deviates from the general rule. Then you come along and say "the rule is X" - the exact same thing I said.

No it won't. It's not a hunt, remember. As you posted above, it's YOUR responsibility to find the landowner and do everything yourself. They're not gonna check anything until the check station

Well, I've been on this hunt twice, first as a hunter and second as a "helper" for my father because he was disabled and couldn't get the antelope out once he shot it. And, I also know several others who have been on this hunt. In all instances, we were required to check in with Dept officials at the motel before the hunt and they checked ID, hunting license, selection letter and landowner permission slip before the hunt..

Uh-huh, right. Would that be the special designated "Controlled Hunt Motel"? I'm supposed to believe that there's such a special motel and special check in when all the letter says is, in essence, here's your county and your time; go for it; good luck. You're not allowed to primitive camp or stay with a relative I suppose, or you wouldn't then even know about the existence of the "Controlled Hunt Motel", now would you? (I was planning to primitive camp if I went).

How do you know they won't make an exception? Rules change sometimes for reasons, and if they're overrun with them, that just might be the reason. That's why the rules have been evolving on lands with pigs, because they want to get rid of them. Perhaps the rules are evolving here too, on transferability.

How do I know they won't make an exception?? Well, if you READ the info at "step 4" of the controlled hunt application process (http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/whatelse.htm) you will find

"6. Permits are not transferable to anyone, including family members. Identification will be required to enter the hunt area."

Is that clear enough for you??

Again, you're misunderstanding the difference between "rule" and "exception". That's the rule (which I already stated a couple of times before you did). Maybe there's a formal or informal exception process that's been instituted now - how do you know? Maybe the game warden will allow it if you ask nicely - I don't know, but I thought it better to allow someone to TRY than to just waste it altogether, since I likely cannot go, due to work conflicts.

Yes, and for that I'm sorry - I didn't forsee the fact that I wouldn't be able to go in October. But it's a doe, not a buck, so I feel better knowing I didn't take away someone's chance to shoot a buck. However, I may try hard to change my schedule around so that I can do it if possible....

I'd find that much more believable if you hadn't complained so much about this not being a controlled hunt since you have to secure permission to hunt on private land.

So you're calling me a liar? Again, right back at you - you are too - with the special 'Controlled Hunt Motel' for something that's not even a controlled hunt. Guess we're supposed to just divine through meditation which town and which motel that is, in our selected county.....

You applied for the hunt, you drew it, I believe it is your responsibility to go. I don't believe it is fair, to all the other people who applied for this hunt and didn't get drawn, for you to waste this tag.

Well that's your opinion and I respect your right to have it. I don't agree in the case of a doe. Those that didn't get drawn just upped their chances for next year. Good for them.

I guess you'd rather me just waste it than to attempt to help someone else by attempting to see if an exception can be made to the no-transferability thing.

That is a new procedure then

So you recognize that rules DO change and evolve then - well I'll be damned!!! Just like I said. So you owe me an apology. You're wrong. Admit it. I'll not hold my breath.

Personally, I think if you draw a hunt and don't go, you should have to prove a medical or family emergency prevented you from going, or be banned from applying for 5 years.

Well then I think you should lobby the wildlife department and the legislature for that change! Until then, quit cryin and mind your own business.

or he is offering the letter so someone else can take his place illegally--------yes, I know that's not what he wrote (wink wink, nudge nudge), but, really, what other possible reasons could he have for starting this thread??

Sorry, that's pathetic - you're basing your entire argument on a bare flimsy allegation that what I mean is the opposite of what I said - that I'm a liar. What proof do you have of that? Any evidence whatsoever? Any more proof than I have when I say that YOU are lying when you said the procedure used to be a different way than we've established that it is now? That's what I thought. Get a life, man.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I don't believe it is fair, to all the other people who applied for this hunt and didn't get drawn, for you to waste this tag

There, we finally smoked out your 'real deal', and why you're angry and being a jerk to me. Why didn't you just say that from the get-go? Would have been a horse of a WHOLE nuther color to have a civil conversation about THAT valid point you raise, instead of the nonsense you started here.

brian89:

If I remember right I read a thread you posted back in the end of turkey season saying you would "pay" someone to put you on birds on their place.. That kinda rubbed me the wrong way.. JMO

Yes, I did exactly that. The horror! Imagine me wanting to increase my odds of success to try to get my girlfriend interested in the sport of hunting, so that we could develop a common interest - Shocking, I know. With your bizarre opinion of this being wrong, somehow, your opinion on buzz being right suddenly makes a lot of sense.

In fact, brian 89:

I'm one of those guys that relies on hunting family land and people that are gracious enough to let me hunt with their permission

So you have family that lets you hunt on their land? So of course you're opposed to people paying, because you don't need it (and happen to also not be able to afford it, as you said). What about those of us who are NOT fortunate enough (like you) to have family with land to ask permission from? I guess they just shouldn't hunt at all, huh? What an arrogant, hypocritical statement you made there.