- Joined
- Apr 20, 2015
- Posts
- 1,987
- Likes
- 24
- Points
- 231
I'm sure about the exact opposite.
R u sure about that?
Because I think they are an awesome animal... and I would like to get one some day. The mule deer numbers will rebound whether cats are around of not. The winters dictate deer numbers way more than a few mountain lions.
Why is it poorly worded it is a simple yes or no question?
- - - Updated - - -
Poorly written because the answer is yes, we should worry. we should worry that a sustainable population is the goal of the gnf. we should worry that they continue to put their personal agendas before the will of the people (not-so-new norm) we should worry that they continue wasting time and (seemingly unlimited?) resource$ persuing a media blitz geared towards convincing people we NEED apex predators competing with us hunters for our limited resources. we should worry about their willingness to skew or not provide pertinent data when requested.....
You could go on and on
BUT
I knew what you meant so I selected no
I think they are awesome animals as well and would like to take one myself, but I have a couple additional questions. In your opinion, don't you already have the opportunity to take a lion in just about every rocky mountain state at a very affordable price without ND having a single lion? Also, In you opinion, wouldn't mule deer numbers rebound faster and stay more viable without lion predation regardless of the type of winter ND has?
Yes, I do have that opportunity... but with the same line of thinking, don't you still have the chance to hunt and harvest a mule deer with mountain lions living in the state? I know a lot of guys that have shot great bucks in the last 10 yrs in the badlands (in the heart of the cat country). And... don't you also have the opportunity to hunt mule deer in other Western States also?
I also think mule deer numbers would rebound faster with no coyotes... no oil production... no vehicles, but nature and humans do need to coexist. Winters have, and always will drive wildlife populations in North Dakota. We can lessen that impact with habitat preservation, etc.
Just my opinion...[/QUOTE
I respect your opinion, but the facts are that lions in ND give the sportsmen of ND very little tangible return while taking from ND hunting opportunities, funding, and the benefits of those funds. If you believe the cost of having lions in ND are acceptable, then I will just have to disagree.
Jeb is a fricken idiot to say numbers are up to the ranchers who live in mountain lion country. Sure deer numbers could be up from the rock bottom numbers we just had, but to tell a group of ranchers that the numbers are up is unbelievably short sighted. Overall the deer numbers in ND are down drastically from where they once where. this whole mountain lion scenario is all about shutting down the houndsmen.
Also, it isn't about shutting down the houndsmen. I think they are going to reduce the tags for both the early season and the houndsmen season. That's how it should go anyway.
I vehemently disagree, and no, I don't have any hounds, nor do I know any of the houndsmen. This is 100% about shutting down a segment of hunters that ND G&F KNOWS is going to be successful in filling their quota annually. Latent function of "requiring a sustainable population and more data/further study" is job security via new gravy train for Tucker.
The game and fish wanting a sustainable lion population in ND is the same as the feds wanting to introduce wolves in the lower 48. The ultimate goal nowadays coming from Washington (the federal boys) is try to establish ecological systems that are self sustainable that mimic presettlement days. Which limit the need for people (hunters) to manage game populations. Lions in the badlands reduce deer numbers thus taking tags away from hunters. They are just trying to disguise their true agenda by saying they want to maintain or increase a hunters opportunity to hunt lions. We don't need to be losing deer to lions. Our deer numbers are already low and we have to wait several years to get drawn for a deer tag. I am pretty sure everyone would prefer to get mule deer buck tag in the badlands every 3 years versus getting one every 6 years and having the opportunity of shooting a lion. Also think about the economics of the situation for the small communities in the badlands area. I am sure they make more money on deer hunters than the odd lion hunter. The G&F can spin it any way the want and it will never make biological, ecological, economical or common sense. Hell while there at it don't stop with lions lets bring back the grizzly bear.
I vehemently disagree, and no, I don't have any hounds, nor do I know any of the houndsmen. This is 100% about shutting down a segment of hunters that ND G&F KNOWS is going to be successful in filling their quota annually. Latent function of "requiring a sustainable population and more data/further study" is job security via new gravy train for Tucker.
You are wrong. They are not shutting down hound hunting.. unless they close the entire lion season down. I do see them cutting tags for both groups. If I am wrong on the hounds... I will have to eat my words, but it ain't happening.
- - - Updated - - -
You are way off... mountain lions aren't even in the same league as a predator that hunts in packs and kills for fun. Not even close...
Also, do you really compare the NDGF with the feds??? Come on... You really think the NDGF wants lower deer tags... It is about balancing NATIVE ND wildlife and not hunting a ND species to extinction in the state. No modern wildlife agency would do that. The deer tags fund the department.
Also, I am sure everyone would LOVE to draw a muley tag every year... let alone every 3 yrs, but that wasn't happening in the early 2000's before the cats exploded. IT WAS THE BAD WINTERS AROUND 2010 that wiped out the deer. Kill every lion in a ND, MT, and SD and you still will be waiting 6-8 yrs to draw your buck tag...
- - - Updated - - -
We're you at any of the meetings???