Deer Licenses

[guywhofishes]

somebody PM me when you’ve solved the deer license problem to everyone’s satisfaction

 

[Meelosh]

Haha. Do you even know the concept of a one tag system ? One tag that can be used for bow, Rifle or muzzy.

Better than you understand net-loss.

 

[Davy Crockett]

Well then why are you referring to bow and gun licenses ?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Meelosh
No Davey. It would mean a 2500 more people with a rifle tag and 23,000 less people with an archery tag. Meaning a net loss of 20,500 tags. And you wonder why people don't like the idea.

 

[You]

Do you have the link or title to the poll you put together?

'One tag system' and 'One tag system part two' - Found them, as well as the statement I thought you made.
(FYI - You 'lost' in both part 1 and part 2.........still waiting on your original message to Terry and 'public apology'....)

Originally Posted by KDM
No you're not Davey, if you were you'd have given up on the one tag system by now and I'm tired of talking. It's a failed idea. If it was worth the key punches and based on anything but social whining the G&F would have adopted it. Try to get the current system changed without cause and I'll do everything I can to block it. Have a Nice Day!!!




You may be right , So far all I see is "two taggers" putting their fingers in their ears and screaming to try intimidate "One taggers". I respect all opinions but I disagree with some and I am not easily intimidated . The way I see it is this will go nowhere between you and I. Since I was the one that opened this can of worms I'd just like to close it once and for all . Problem with me is that I'm so damn competitive that I either have to win or lose and this just isn't cutting it. To put this to rest I am going to start another poll and let the majority decide. I'll do it in few days when I have more time during the cold spell, That also will give more people time to educate themselves. Fair and square , Win or lose I won't have a chip on my shoulder either way. If I lose I will admit that I was wrong and publicly apologize to everyone for making an ass out of myself.

 

[Davy Crockett]

Fair ball, I apologise to all that think I made an ass out of myself on the other two topics . I don't owe you shit but since you asked I will dig around and see if I can find my original message , Why is that so important to you ?

 

[You]

Fair ball, I apologise to all that think I made an ass out of myself on the other two topics . I don't owe you shit but since you asked I will dig around and see if I can find my original message , Why is that so important to you ?

Context. Tough to digest a convo when you only hear one side.

 

[Davy Crockett]

[FONT=&quot]Greetings Mr. Steinwand,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] I am wondering the status of the one license per hunter idea that was introduced , Is it something that is on the back burner for now or has the idea been proven not worthy of pursuing and scrapped ? Also would like your opinion if the idea has any merit to allow a significant number of more rifle hunters a chance to participate ? I am being told by other sportsmen that bow hunt and apply for the lottery that the numbers would make very little if any difference but in my mind even small numbers add up to double dipping while others stay home. Boy, wouldn't a nice winter be a treat this year, I know you are trying to do the best you can with what you have to work with but it's no secret with the declining habitat and increase in hunter population of the state over the years that the future isn't what we would have hoped for. Thank you in advance for your response.



[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thanks for taking the time to contact me on an issue that is evidently of great interest to you—deer hunting. It can definitely be an issue and especially for those that have not had a deer license for a number of years. You evidently remember the statewide meetings we held about four years ago on the concept of only one deer license per hunter. It definitely stirred some interest but if you attended any of the meetings we also stated it was a social issue and not a biological one. The biological portion is one we’ve been stressing and that’s having adequate habitat to support larger numbers of deer to meet the demand of ND hunters.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The idea of a one license per hunter is still on the list of what we could do but, as you stated, it’s on the back burner. That doesn’t mean it will stay there indefinitely though. North Dakota has a history of deer hunting, which includes gun and bow. In the past 10 years, bow hunting has definitely increased in popularity—probably in part to those people that were unsuccessful in getting a gun license. If the trend continues in that direction and the deer herd declines I would say we’d have to revisit the one license concept as one option to more equitably distribute the licenses.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And you are absolutely correct in stating it would be nice to have a relatively mild winter. That would go a long way in continuing the rebound of our deer herd. Thanks again for your comments.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Kurtr]

Well then why are you referring to bow and gun licenses ?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Meelosh
No Davey. It would mean a 2500 more people with a rifle tag and 23,000 less people with an archery tag. Meaning a net loss of 20,500 tags. And you wonder why people don't like the idea.

if you go to one tag 20500 people who had the opportunity to hunt wont have it and you are wanting this one tag system under the fact you want more opportunity for more people to hunt. It seems with the numbers posted that opportunity is lost not gained

 

[Duckslayer100]

I kind of find this whole argument entertaining, not just for the parties involved, but because I feel like we're looking at the issue in a bizzare fashion. People are arguing over how to allocating the licenses we have. Some want it to remain the same, others want it changed. It's hunter against hunter in the age-old debates that our grandfathers and great grandfathers have had (it some way or form).

But what I truly find funny is that we're arguing over the tags themselves -- not the deer. We're talking about how to raise the amount of opportunities based on the current deer herd. Not once has anyone asked "well how do we get more deer so there's more opportunity?"

It's like, we're so used to the status quo that nobody even entertains the notion that we could somehow get our deer herds back to the way they were just 10 years ago.

Boggles my mind, really. We keep talking about opportunities for kids and family. Basically, planning for their future. Don't you guys see the irony in all this??

 

[Davy Crockett]

x amount of those people have both bow and rifle tag.

 

[Kurtr]

do you or your kids have the opportunity to get bow tags?

 

[dust in the wind]

x amount of those people have both bow and rifle tag.

These numbers are for 2016 - I had asked for them or the 2017 #'s back in December 2017 but since bow tags could still be sold, they didn't have the numbers readily available so 2016 numbers were provided.

22,681 Resident bow tags purchased for 2016
1,874 residents had both gratis deer and a bow tag
6,235 people that bought bow licenses did not apply for gun tags.

16,118 purchased a bow tag and applied for the lottery - of those only
6,940 residents had both a deer lottery and a deer bow tags.

13,466 resident gratis tags were issued in 2016
69,917 applied for lottery and did not apply for gratis
Approx. 34,970 tags were available after gratis removed, youth do not take away from this total.


72,112 applicants

 

[Davy Crockett]

Thanks buck hunter , So a one tag system in 2016 would have freed up 8814 more tags (minus whatever % change in success rate)

 

[Phill Latio]

NO , Taking a tag from someone that only has one tag doesn't make much sense . Taking a tag from someone that has two tags and giving it to someone that doesn't makes sense. Not sure how to say this without coming across with bad vibes but it has to be said . As sportsmen , we have to get along for many reasons. land access can be tough in some areas and I don't see that getting better any time soon, The longer we can delay that the better off we are. I don't want to piss off landowners and neither should you guys, Taking away gratis tags will do just that. Common sense goes a long ways.

landowners with gratis tags don't let people deer hunt anyway!!!! and if they do they have a cousins brother inlaw's neighbors friend of a friend that already hunts their 25 quarters so you can't hunt that 5 acre wooded parcel next to your house.

You're right, common sense does go a long way, get some and you'll understand....

 

[dust in the wind]

Thanks buck hunter , So a one tag system in 2016 would have freed up 8814 more tags (minus whatever % change in success rate)

Not sure you can really include the 1874 gratis holders that had a bow tag.

It would have freed up a bow tag but not a lottery tag provided they choose to take their gratis tag.
It would have freed up a lottery tag if they had chosen to take the bow tag instead of their gratis tag. I'm not sure they would do that though.

It would have prevented 6940 from getting multiple tags.

BUT what isn't known is how many of those would have applied for the lottery instead or purchased the bow only tag.

 

[Davy Crockett]

Not sure you can really include the 1874 gratis holders that had a bow tag.


One tag is one tag , No reason for a gratis holder bo be able to get two tags.

 

[dust in the wind]

With a one tag system it would be impossible to do both.

As I said in the 2 lines below your response, if they choose the gratis tag - that takes a tag away from the lottery. It prevented them from buying a bow tag.

If they bought their bow tag, then it prevented them from getting a gratis tag - which yes, that would have added a tag for the lottery. How many would actually do that though? I'm thinking it's pretty small number.

Really boils to down which 1 tag system you are referring to - I may have missed that.


The 1 tag system previously proposed and shot down - I asked this question:

If that plan were to have been implemented, there may have been X number (past discussions said it might be 7,000 to 10,000) of bow hunters that were no longer in the lottery due to wanting to keep the statewide bow option. If that were to have happened, would that simply have reduced the number of people in the lottery OR would it have actually increased the tags in the lottery?

A: The idea behind the one deer plan was to reduce the competition in the gun lottery, not add licenses to the lottery due to a lower number of bow licenses being sold.


reminder this is from December 2017 -
Do the archery tags being issued today, have any impact on the number of licenses available for rifle tags/gratis tags?

It’s possible but probably not a big factor at this point. We use several different methods to determine how many deer tags to issue each year, are the number of deer being harvested by archers making a difference in the overall number of deer on the landscape which would then make a difference in the number of licenses being issued for gun tags? A number of years ago I would say that answer was most definitely a no, but the harvest associated with archery hunting has also increased a fair amount over the last 10 years to where we can no longer say that number is insignificant.

 

[Davy Crockett]

Really boils to down which 1 tag system you are referring to - I may have missed that.


1 tag to be used in any season archery,rifle or muzzleloader

 

[dust in the wind]

Really boils to down which 1 tag system you are referring to - I may have missed that.


1 tag to be used in any season archery,rifle or muzzleloader

Right but are you figuring that the archery licenses would be added into the lottery?

This is what I haven't seen or may have missed.

 

[Davy Crockett]

Archery added to the lottery .