yes, but the management areas are managed poorly to me anyways. seems like all the state is concerned with on wma's is filling the whole damn place with longleaf pines so the pileated woodpecker can live, screw planting foodplots for deer and turkeys. if i had control of the wma's the very first thing i would do is clear cut about 70 percent of the land and cut the 100 year old hardwoods and longleafs off of it, leave a few seed trees maybe 1 every 100 yards, use part of the timber money to bulldoze half of what was cut to make agricultural fields that farmers could lease from the state to grow corn or soybean, let the other half of what was cut regenerate on its own creating good bedding and food. use the money from the leased agricultural land to plant some freakin foodplots. then, you could call it a management area. right now they are just public hunting land.

Aren't some if not most of the WMAs still privately held land that is leased to the state? It would be a shame if some of these leases aren't renewed due to destruction of property. I'd vote yes.

Why do you need a fee to prevent destruction? Just close it to rec vehicles.

23 yes 3 no keep going

Would you support a law requiring people who joy ride on WMAs to have to purchase a WMA license? I would vote yes in a heart beat.

And pecker (and peckerless) heads that ride bikes on public roads buy tags as well.

Why do you need a fee to prevent destruction? Just close it to rec vehicles.

Anyone that doesn't want to pay the same as hunters, just wants to keep on enjoying the public land access that us hunters provide without paying one dime of their own money.