Guessing that was a long time ago. Give us another try.

What kind of land was the Penn group hunting?

Seems it was all kinds. State Park, private property, city, etc.... Whereever they were needed.

Still upsets me.

but oh well.

I got my stick handy, now where did I put that dead horse?

You got your stick handy and you want a dead horse? You ain't right man....you ain't right!

Lots of arguments on here have merit. Thanks Barry for clarifying for everyone. And those that complain about the the public land for BHA use, did you call your state representative, or did you check into how much money was spent in the past or will be spent in the future on these hunts that was taxpayers.

Research a lot of items and things will become clearer.

It always surprises me on how people view things. "For BHA use", is an interesting comment. Yes, the hunters have to be BHA members to hunt this year, but the hunt is not for BHA use. But, I guess it could be viewed that way.

I do find it interesting that the hunt is much cheaper than it was in the past. It is costing the DCNR much less in labor and expense.BHA is doing all the preparation for the hunt (registration, proficiency test, mailing of permits, etc...) But, it still seems to chap some butts that part of the money goes to BHA.

I would have thought that the interested bowhunters would have been glad that:
1. The cost to the hunter was decreased
2. That they could shoot the proficiency tests on weekends and afternoons so they wouldn't have to take off from work to take the test like they did in the past
3. Save the DCNR money that they don't have to spend on selecting the hunters
4. And that their experience, success, and love of the sport of bowhunting would actually benefit them in being selected for the hunt.

But, I guess the ole saying about not being able to please everyone is true was again.

If taxpayer dollars are being used to run a public hunt on public land, I consider that a good use of my tax money. Much better than many things it is being used for.

Should the DNR also turn over the WMA's to be managed by other groups? That would also save taxpayer dollars.

I don't see any comparision to WMA and the Oak Mountain other than they are both public land. But, the hunts are extremely different. WMA's are open to everyone (resident & non-resident), there are no limits to the number of hunters and the WMA's are open every day of the hunting season with some restrictions (weapon).

The Oak Mountain hunt has 4 specified hunt days and restricted weapon choice (archery). Oak Mountain has never been open to the public for hunting.

Where were all these complaints about Oak Mountain before the hunts started 4 years ago. Ya'll seem to want to keep comparing Oak Mountain to WMA's. Oak Mountain has never been treated as a WMA.

I have determined that some of you will just continue to complain no matter what. Bless your hearts.

Facts:
It is cheaper now
It is easier to qualify (more available)
It is saving the DCNR manpower and money
Everyone that passed the proficiency test has been chosen. Yes, I even sent a letter to the one I was thinking about DQing.

So, I wonder, I we had charged $15 to shoot the proficiency test and apply for the hunt instead of having to join BHA, would ya'll still complain?

It is not the same as a WMA but it is an opportunity to allow public hunting on land that was previously closed to public hunting. That is a step in the right direction for sure and hopefully will lead to more state parks being opened for hunting.

It is not true that Oak Mountain has not been opened to public hunting. It was opened to public hunting for the last couple of years utilizing a lottery system to allow every applicant an equal opportunity to hunt.

If you dropped the BHA membership requirement and used a lottery system to fill the quota of hunters the park can support so that everyone has an equal chance of hunting, I don't think I would have a problem with BHA conducting the hunt. Having an application fee is not a problem as long as you can show records that the fee was not in excess of the costs incurred by putting on the hunt. I don't think BHA should be able to make money off of a state park.

OK, my time to gripe even if it is a litte late in the thread...

I've hunted a few of the OM hunts in the past. My biggest gripe with the old system was that with 80 hunters, plus alternates, and there was never that many people that showed up. There was a mandatory meeting the first morning of each hunt. Never had 80 there when I was present. And, by the afternoon of the second day, once everybody saw there wasn't a 10 point behind every tree, the woods were practically empty. Heck, if you were drawn at least have the decency to show up and hunt.

Look, there will be rules to every State Park hunt ever held in this State. Learn the rules, apply if you want to hunt, else get on a website and complain.

I can't believe they are counting these bucks in our three per year limit, not letting me use a laser sight, making me use a safety belt, not letting me use corn, not allowing me to use my super duper remotely triggered crossbow, not letting me use poison pods, not letting me just club them with a 7 iron. Geez, what limitations will they think of next?

Regarding the money, the daily guest fee at my hunting club is more than $10.

I would define public hunting as open access during hunting season. Sorry for the wording.

jlccoffee,

Your logic escapes me. You are requesting a lottery where not everyone gets drawn instead of a process where hunters are chosed based on experience and skill. And by the way, every hunter that has applied and passed the proficiency test has been accepted.

So, you would rather only have a chance and pay more than as it turned out be selected for sure. Interesting!


Wade,

I observed the same thing. Many didn't show up. Many of the hunters bailed after the first day. Many let deer walk. Many were not there for the right reasons. Many didn't seem to have much experience. But, those are just my observations. I hope things work much better this year.

Bucks in this hunt SHOULD NOT be counted in the season limit, but only if the drawn OMSP hunter kills two or three does first before killing a buck.

Thin the herd? Add some restrictions on kills and an incentive for a buck. This hunt should be a "bonus" hunt and "bonus" buck.

Then you might see some guys flinging arrows and killing deer to get that OMSP bonus buck tag, and they might return the second day.

They had the requirement to kill a doe first the past few years. I had a 40 pound spike with his hip and rib bones sticking out stand under my tree for about 45 minutes one afternoon. He would have been a great deer to take out, but I couldn't.

I have been thinking about this problem and the best solution I can come up with would be to place an antler restriction on the Oak Mountain hunt. Make bucks with more than 6 points off limits completely. If hunters knew up front that they couldn't shoot a trophy no matter what, maybe it would attract more hunters with the correct attitude.

But, with that being said, I don't think we are going to have a trophy hunter problem this year at all. The interview process has allowed us to explain the program and what is expected.

Once again, I hope and think things will be better this year.

My logic is it is publicly owned property. The public should all have equal chances to get to hunt it.....not just those you think "qualify".

The lottery is the way to do that. If like this year, there are fewer applicants than spots to hunt then everyone gets drawn. If there are more applicants than spots, the lottery decided who hunts and who doesn't instead of Barry deciding.

That's an easy problem to fix. If you want 80 hunters and you know only 50% of those drawn generally show up, you draw 160 names and you will end up with around 80 hunters.

The state know that so when they drew 80 names, hopefully they knew that 80 would not show up and had taken that into account.

I would nolonger complain.

Being a life long resident of Pelham and living so close to OM perhaps I spent most of my childhood on the park and perhaps I can shed some light on this issue. OM being one if not the oldest state park is now more high profile and visible than it used to be. The population increase in and around Pelham has created a diverse group of people that were not here 20 years ago. 20 years ago a sharp shooter hunting over a pile of corn would not have been a problem and I suspect had OM acted then they would not be where they are, they didn't of course and now here we are. If you send a sharpshooter into the park with a gun (illegal weapon), silencer (illegal) and some (illegal) bait then you may do more harm than good when it comes to public sentiment towards the effort to protect the wildlife and reduce the herd for the sake of health, some will see the necessity, others will see it as a slaughter and be sickened. Now on the other hand if you send in Archers who have been selected based on define criteria and whose mandate is to reduce the herd as swiflty, as quietly and as ethically as possible then those "fence sitter" as we call them may view the whole thing in a better light, they may not. They will see that the Deer has more of a fighting chance to win.

I can understand how some of you feel but if a group can come in and select bowhunters who will follow the mandate to reduce the herd in an effort to help the park then that is best for all involved. Also keep this in mind. If this is successful and the balance of the herd can be maintained whose to say that one day a dedicated season is not given to OM where hunters can kill older trophy bucks and does as a means to control the herd for the future.

Good luck Barry, let us know how it goes.