Ugh

M1911

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
47,919
Likes
23,265
Location
Near Framingham
Feedback: 29 / 0 / 0
I was at a forum tonight discussing deer management, organized by a non-profit landowner. The audience included managers from other non-profit conservation organizations. The speakers included Mass Wildlife and representatives of several town Conservation Commissions that have introduced (severely) limited hunting on town owned conservation land.

The town agents crowed about how successful their programs were and how restrictive they were -- "OK, hunter, now jump through this flaming hoop..."

One of the town's conservation agent told the audience that their program resulted in 3 deer taken last year. And they considered that a success.

MassWildlife said that in zone 10 we have three times the number of deer that they consider to be appropriate. But that's OK. We're on the case. Three deer out of one of the largest towns in MetroWest. Frickin' awesome.

Yeah, that will solve the problem! [rolleyes]

On the bright side, they all seemed to realize that we have a problem and that the only viable solution is hunting. On the not-so-bright side, they seem culturally predisposed to imposing so many restrictions on hunting that there is zero possibility of successfully managing the deer population.
 
Last edited:
Beware some towns that have those restrictive hunting programs in place. They collect some really personal details, name dob ltc #. Read the fine print and get a copy of the privacy disclosure.
 
DFW does the exact same thing to get a range permit for downfall wma.

You're privacy isn't much of their concern it seems.
 
MassWildlife has a tough row to hoe...and "Bambi" has just been re-released....it's gonna get worse (for some reason, almost no one remembers the 'starving in the winter" part.....)

Deer are everywhere, but they're only seen by non-hunters in the back yard, or bounding across the road (And, occasioally the hood.)

You can't seriously think that there's a reason to kill those beautiful creatures, can you? And what if one of those hunters was seen with a dead deer by a child? They might think that store meat comes from animals! Hunting in an area where there are people is just wrong. There should be no hunting within a mile of any living creature.

With this sort of silly hysteria, 3 deer out of one "closed" town is a succcess....
 
M1911 said:
The town agents crowed about how successful their programs were and how restrictive they were -- "OK, hunter, now jump through this flaming hoop..."

One of the town's conservation agent told the audience that their program resulted in 3 deer taken last year. And they considered that a success.
Click to expand...

A lot of hunters are not going to bother jumping through those hoops. I looked at a couple of those hunts last year and I was not even remotely interested because of all of the extra crap.

Lets face it, they are the towns with the problem so the mentality is to make it as difficult as possible for hunters to come and help them out. These must be the same people who write the gun laws.[rolleyes]

One doe with triplets in the spring will negate that "successful" hunt.[laugh]

Bob
 
HorizontalHunter said:
A lot of hunters are not going to bother jumping through those hoops. I looked at a couple of those hunts last year and I was not even remotely interested because of all of the extra crap.
Click to expand...
That's basically what I told them. I told them that they need to keep their goal in mind -- reduce deer overpopulation -- while creating their policies and procedures. And that each hurdle that they add reduces the number of hunters they will have on their property. The smaller the number of hunters, the less deer taken, which is diametrically opposed to their goal. I don't think the message got through, however. They seemed to have a visceral need to control people.
 
M1911 said:
That's basically what I told them. I told them that they need to keep their goal in mind -- reduce deer overpopulation -- while creating their policies and procedures. And that each hurdle that they add reduces the number of hunters they will have on their property. The smaller the number of hunters, the less deer taken, which is diametrically opposed to their goal. I don't think the message got through, however. They seemed to have a visceral need to control people.
Click to expand...

Not people. Hunters. Hunters are an abberation in this society, and while legally tolerated, they're percieved as wierdos by most non-hunters.

There may be an overpopulation problem, but since it's generally invisible to most, there's mostly no problem. It's not until the deer die on the lawn, and are revaled by the melting snow that people wake up for a moment.

The town conservation comission may intellectually understand that having 3 times the "max" population is bad, but the idea of those poor, beautiful creatures being brutally slaughtered to gratify the bloodlust of nutballs is bad, too. By establishing the hoops, the Comission shows that they're protectiing the local people, while also attempting to fix the problem.

Unfortunately, the biological and political considerations are at odds. [rolleyes]

One of the people in my neighborhood had an expensive shed torn down because there were woodchucks unde it, and "Woodchucks might have rabies".

If this is the baseline, how do you think they'd respond to the idea of a Robin Hood wanna-be up in a tree with an asault bow?
 
MisterHappy said:
Not people. Hunters. Hunters are an abberation in this society, and while legally tolerated, they're percieved as wierdos by most non-hunters.
Click to expand...
That's a good description of how the city contacts for Newton treated me when I was trying to get data specific to hunting the deer at a pond I frequent via bow. I actually got an email that said, I don't know why anyone would want to kill something so majestic, but I'll check the bylaws... derp.
 
davemata said:
That's a good description of how the city contacts for Newton treated me when I was trying to get data specific to hunting the deer at a pond I frequent via bow. I actually got an email that said, I don't know why anyone would want to kill something so majestic, but I'll check the bylaws... derp.
Click to expand...

"Cause they made it out of meat"
 
Perhaps the Board of Health should be invited to some of these get-togethers and bring along statistics on how the rise in Lyme Disease correlates to the rise in deer population?
 
M1911 said:
...On the bright side, they all seemed to realize that we have a problem and that the only viable solution is hunting. On the not-so-bright side, they seem culturally predisposed to imposing so many restrictions on hunting that there is zero possibility of successfully managing the deer population.
Click to expand...

Well said. Did you mention any of that to the group? Maybe a letter to the local paper saying just that would help open some eyes. Thanks for going.


Edit:
M1911 said:
That's basically what I told them. I told them that they need to keep their goal in mind -- reduce deer overpopulation -- while creating their policies and procedures. And that each hurdle that they add reduces the number of hunters they will have on their property. The smaller the number of hunters, the less deer taken, which is diametrically opposed to their goal. I don't think the message got through, however. They seemed to have a visceral need to control people.
Click to expand...

Nevermind. I see you've covered it.
 
oldyankee said:
Perhaps the Board of Health should be invited to some of these get-togethers and bring along statistics on how the rise in Lyme Disease correlates to the rise in deer population?
Click to expand...

Actually, one of the town representatives who was so proud of their limited hunting was a member of the town board of health.

Good idea, but it still didn't work.
 
Overpopulated spots in MA need about 5 more years of high auto/deer collisions, kids getting lyme disease, and deer eating thousands of dollars of shrubs before people might come around.....even then the laws are too restrictive for hunting urban areas anyway.
 
Mark from MA said:
Overpopulated spots in MA need about 5 more years of high auto/deer collisions, kids getting lyme disease, and deer eating thousands of dollars of shrubs before people might come around.....even then the laws are too restrictive for hunting urban areas anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, the setback laws are overly restrictive and create a sanctuary for deer. I was completely disgusted by the response from the MassWildlife representatives when this was pointed out -- they were completely gutless.
 
Mark from MA said:
even then the laws are too restrictive for hunting urban areas anyway.
Click to expand...

There needs to be another deer season -- Urban/Edged Weapon. It will be a special season allowing deer within 500ft of dwellings and/or 150ft of roads to be taken with spears, knives, and halberds [devil2]
 
M1911 said:
Yes, the setback laws are overly restrictive and create a sanctuary for deer. I was completely disgusted by the response from the MassWildlife representatives when this was pointed out -- they were completely gutless.
Click to expand...

They are gutless, no doubt. It's a total 180 compared to CT. I've dealt with EPO's on a few occasions when dealing with a neighbor anti.....they scoop the deer up, drop it at my feet, and say, shoot another one and we'll go get it for you as many times as you want......thanks for coming down and taking care of our problem.

I will say that town organized hunts in CT are a waste of time....too many self imposed rules by a bunch of people who have no idea what's involved in killing deer with a bow.
 
It's obvious that they need to use contraception or have some people running around with BuckRubbers. Either way is a win.
 
Back
Top Bottom