Quote:
Originally Posted by Smalls
Dude, you are so far off on what I've suggested. How many times have I said that I'm not suggesting 20 zones?
You are so far off on this, its ridiculous. Stick to your math, and please, for the love of all things wild, stay away from any regulatory entity that has power over natural resources.
|
Yep, it gets offensive when math challenges the power that gov't types want to exercise, not just over natural resources, but over honest citizens who want enjoy and utilize those resources.
Don't you think 15 pages of deer regulations are enough? Do we really need additional regulations refining in more detail what is and is not allowed in each zone?
OK, so you're good with 10 zones, you just want each to have different harvest limits rather than regulating harvest numbers with open and closed dates. But the existing limit of six is a possession limit, rather than a harvest limit. A hunter who lived in zone 10 couldn't bring home six deer even if all six deer were shot on family hunting land in zone 3.
This scheme (limiting harvest numbers by kill limits rather than open dates) inevitably leads to much more complex and expensive tagging schemes, usually that connect tags with specific zones. So if you hunt in zone 10 and get invited to zone 3, you've got to buy a tag for that zone, etc. I kinda like it how it is now. At least the tagging scheme is simple. Six deer anywhere in the state.