Can't decide if I'm for or against this.

http://www.aonmag.com/article.php?id=1576&cid=158

Why? I think its a win/win for both.

BHA made one of its first membership gains when they took control of the Childersberg Powder Plant hunts in the late 60's. One had to be a member of BHA to hunt there. A lot of hunters joined just to be able to hunt on the Powder plant.

I don't have a real prob with BhA running the Oak Mtn hunts but I don't feel that one should HAVE to be a member to hunt a state owned piece of land like Oak Mtn state Park.

troy

It does not happen often but I do agree with you Troy

Well put.

Im all for it

Its going to put real bowhunters in the woods instead of some wal-mart hunter, and the cost of joining BHA is alot less than what they charged to hunt it the last few years and it goes to a good cause US BOWHUNTERS

Huh???? The "Wal-Mart" hunter can pay his fees and join the BHA just like anybody else. Heck, I've been an NWTF member for a few years and i don't even turkey hunt. :rolleyes:

Actually don't you have to be a member in order to apply to hunt? That is what I have a problem with.

If there is a real problem, let the state dept of fish and wildlife go in there and take care of the problem in one or two weekends by hiring professionals to do this. If the herd needs to be drastically cut, bow hunters of any degree of expertise will not be effective in reducing the population to healthy levels. It seems to me that BHA has just stepped in to get membership numbers up. I know nothing about BHA, but just because I'm not a member, I don't think I should be considered a walmart hunter. I have had no problems in harvesting deer in the past, and with no help of a card that I carry to make me a more efficient hunter based on the article about BHA. They will screen all of the members and pick their buddies, it is as simple as money and politics, and we the citizens of the state of Alabama have let this org. come in and walk all over us hunters that pay for our licenses every year.
Give the conservation dept bullets, rifles and spotlights and let them take care of the problem. That is the only way to remove the numbers of deer they needing to.

I think this is a little harsh of an attitude towards BHA. I don't like the requiring anyone to join a private organization to hunt state property and would support them recommending people join BHA instead. I am a member of BHA by the way. I would not support hiring the conservation department to have professionals do what private citizens would pay to do.

So you would rather see someone go in there and spotlight deer with high powered rifles than someone who really enjoys to be in the woods and do it the right way? boy you sound like a real hunter to me. We as hunters should be happy that someone gets to hunt a piece of land no matter what type of land it is than hiring "professionals" :rolleyes: to go in there and poach them.

I think Antlerhunter has a point - and some of you are missing it. The reason for the hunt is not to open up a pristine area to Alabama bowhunters. The point is to reduce the population of the deer in the park to a level that can be sustained by the resources in the park. And anybody that says bowhunters can have a noticeable impact on an overpopulated herd probably know they are lying to you and to themselves.

If it really is about population reduction, hunters should only be able to kill does since that will have the greatest impact on the current and future population. Further this will prevent a hunter from holding out for a buck.

“We only want the safest, most effective and efficient bowhunters out there,” Barry said. “We’ll be able to provide a service, and we’re not charging for it.”


Uhhhh, yes you are. You are not charging the state but you are certainly getting your bread buttered by forcing people to join your organization which means your pockets are growing.

Before BHA took over people applied for the hunt the mony was used by the state..Now that BHA has it they recieve the money and the state does not get an of it..I think it wasa poor decsion by the state to turn it over..

I would rather pull my fingernails out one at a time with a pair of pliers than join the BHA. Why? Because of this current deal with the Oak Mountain hunt. The BHA is using a public hunt on public land, land that is owned by each and every one of us, to increase their membership and finances. And they'll turn around and use this increased power to further their agenda. Whether I agree with that agenda or not is irrelevant, it is the principle that is wrong.

What would be the response on here if the state struck up a deal with the state Democratic party to run WMA hunts, and required you to join the Democratic party if you wanted to hunt on a WMA? What would be the response on here to that? I doubt it would be favorable, though it is the exact same principle. The idea that a private organization is using public lands to further their agenda is not right.

It was a poor decision by the state.

I don't understand the fuss. It's simple economics really. There are many ways this could be structured really, here are a few.

1) Pay for sharpshooters to handle the problem. This would be very costly. A terrible use of state dollars.

2) Let the state handle the hunts. Sure they take in some money, but they spend a lot of money too. I understand that many state employees were on hand for the past hunts. Financial outcome - dead even

3) Let a group like BHA handle the hunt. It costs the state nothing and they don't have the headaches associated with it. Financial outcome - dead even with less headaches.

To me it's a win-win situation but somehow all the conspiracy theorists are going to find a way to make something negative out of it.

rackhunter03, yes I am a serious hunter, spend 4-6 days a week in the woods from Oct 15 till Jan 31. I douby there are many that spend the time I do year round.
WMD, yes that is correct. If it is a population control issue, as the state says it is, then they need to get it under control. Archery is no way to lower herd numbers to the extent that it is needed. If you had a flea infestation in you're house, you wouldn't go and pick them off one by one with tweezers, you would take a much more effective approach to rid the problem.
DCNR employees, state troopers ect could do the job instead of having to hire sharp shooters. put our state resources to work on this and get it under control, period.

I know it sets wrong with a bunch of hunters who want the opportunity to hunt the area, but fact is fact. If bow hunters could lower the numbers effectively, then I say let us hunt it, but we can't. Even the best archers (what they are looking for) would only be minimally effective.

I understand where your coming from antlerhunter and I know your not a walmart hunter if you spend that much time in the woods and us hunters should all be on the same side but if I had to choose between the state popping deer or someone up a tree enjoying a hunt, I would have to go with the hunter, and as far as the population I think this year more deer will be taken since BHA is involved.

Why not allow people to trap them and relocate to another area of the state where the herd is lower. This was done at guntersville a few years ago.

So you would rather see someone go in there and spotlight deer with high powered rifles


Yes, because they will be able to get the job done very effectively, quickly, with more numbers lost from the population and at night without any media attention or fuss from people ... because DCNR already has done this in the past and should ramp it up.


"poach them"

A legally-hired group of snipers working for the state agency who hires it to do a population control job is not "poaching" anything.

Poaching is if you hunted someone's property, say in Wilcox County, and were cited by the LEOs for hunting without permission.

I agree 100%. I believe the State should take the necessary steps to get the herd below the carrying capacity of the habitat ASAP. After that, and only after that, I would like to see frequent public bow hunting allowed to help keep the population in check.

With the current herd at over-capacity, I just don't see a last-ditch-effort of a few weekend bow hunts being very effective at reducing the herd to acceptable levels. CD.

I could be wrong, but I'll bet it has something to do with liability and legalities. BHA members would be covered by an umbrella policy where non-members wouldn't have that coverage.

Just a guess.

Maybe you should call Gary Moody at (334) 242-3469 and tell him that you know more about the carrying capacity of Oak Mountain, than he does, and he's going about this thing all wrong.

Hell, he might hire you on the spot, to run the whole thing.

Hey thanks Outback for the number. I guess you still had it handy from your recent conversation about "Earn A Buck". Oh, that's right! You didn't call either.

It's OK, because 'ol Moody and staff really know what to do. They just have to make sure they're not stepping in a big steaming pile of public scrutiny when they make decisions.

For the record, just so we know where we stand...

Do you feel like Oak Mtn. is over populated with deer?

Do you feel like a few weekend BOW hunts are gonna make much of a difference?

Would you like to see some form of scheduled public hunting in the future?

Oh, BTW, here are your comments from your "Earn A Buck" thread...

"We are very slowly changing the mindset of hunters as more and more hunters and landowners learn the benefits of Deer, other wildlife and habitat management. We can eventually overcome the selfish nature that's been a staple of Alabama hunters for decades, but the biggest obsticle we face (now) is the current regime.
Fortunately many of them are approaching retirement and hopefully, God willing, for the sake of our hunting, there will be a clean house before too much longer. We need some leadership with the balls and the innovation to implement some real game management across the state. We need some leadership with less pride and more intelligence. Enough intelligence to, at least, recognize the obvious success of the technics used in other states. Enough integrity to put aside the "my way or the hiway" mentality and realize that you are not smarter or more enlightened than the guys running Ohio's Dept. of Conservation".

That said, do you really think I should call Gary? CD.

I've read this and can not believe what has been wrote.1st BHA is a non-profit org.And if you want to see where the money goes that BHA takes in all you have to do is look on www.alabamabowhunter.com and read the minutes of the board meeting and you will see!This year alone we Rasied $5323.00 for Big Brothers/Big Sisters,$1500.00 for the Shriner's!We also rasied money and worked the state final's for the NASP program and bought supply's to start new school for Nasp and money for the Childrens Hospital!And I know I'm leaving a bunch out!
It funny all the good that BHA has done get's covered up by the one black eye they got for wanting to keep cross-bow's out of archery season!And now were getting jump on for the State asking us to run these hunt's.
Is BHA perfect?No!But were tring to do our part in getting as many new people in the sport of Archery and Hunting so that we will gain the # of people hunting each year instead of the decline in # we are having now!
Now blast away!I know I'm going to get Rip a new one!But there was no way I could set by and watch something good get torn down!Good Day!RIP50

Fair enough, I guess we all get to thinking we can do something better.

Yes, I believe Oak Mountain is over populated with deer.

Yes, I do believe a few weekend BOW hunts (now that BHA is running it) are gonna make a difference.

Yes, I would like to see some form of scheduled public hunting in ALL of our state parks, as well as Forever Wild Lands, in the future.

Rip all I can say is congrats to you and BHA...

Me being upset has nothing to do with BHA...
I think they are a great OrG that I've thought about joining in the past.

My problem is that you must be a member of a org just to have a chance to hunt a PUBLIC land..therefore it's nolonger public...it is a BHA hunting club.
Yes I said club, I must pay dues to hunt my club land and it seems that If I want to continue to hunt this FORMER public land that I must pay dues to the BHA.

what a joke.

I don't have a problem with BHA running the OM hunts. The state doesn't want to have to devote resources (or "just can't") to it so who else would be more perfect to oversee and run the organized hunts?? The state (or the hunting public) CANNOT afford (the risks) to open OM up to anyone that wants to freely hunt OM unchecked. Some idiot would be found jacking up a tree hunting in someone's backyard and the news would be all over it!

BHA has to get its arms around this undertaking somehow. They need to know who you are if you're going to hunt OM under BHA's supervision.

I am not a member of BHA but I support having to be a member of BHA if you're going to hunt OM.

I'm sure there will be some ethics, rules, regulations and bow proficiency involved if you want to hunt OM and somehow, these requirements will need to be monitored.

Most all of the hunters on Aldeer.com as well as Alabama hunters are good people but it only takes one lawbreaking, unethical person (I won't call them a hunter) with a bow doing something stupidly unethical to ruin it for all of us.

We live by the rules of the majority...Obama proved that, unfortunately. The majority of Alabama citizens are not hunters so in a situation that is as much of a public stage as the OM hunt is, we need to make sure that only responsible hunters are allowed to hunt and the only way to do that is go through some type of screening and interviewing process.

I could almost agree to having to be a member of BHA to hunt, but that ain't the case. You have to be a member to apply for a chance to hunt . Lots of organizations require you to be a member to participate in their event on public property. For example, the U.S. Track and Field Association requires you to be a member to run in their sanctioned events, but durnit, you pay your money, you show up at an open event, you run. You might get smoked and eliminated in the early heats, but you get to participate. Here, you send in your application with your membership fee, you probably are not going to get selected, because BHA is going to know that you are not a serious bowhunter because if you were you would have already been a member of BHA, and whammo, presto, you don't get selected to hunt and you are still a member of an organization that you would not have joined in the first place but were forced to join for the opportunity to maybe, possibly be interviewed for a right to hunt on state property. That is the issue I, and apparently others, have with this gig.

BHA may do great things with their money, I give a lot of my time and money to charities; that is not why I would join a hunting organization.

I wonder what Oak Mountain did about insurance before BHA? Probably had to sign a waiver or something.

Well, I have been off hunting for a week and I can see ya'll have been having fun without me. Let me try to catch up and correct some of the misstatements.


Actually, you shoot the proficiency test first, if you pass, and then you apply for the hunt and join BHA.

antlerhunter,
The DCNR asked us to do this. You guys crack me up. You have no clue what is going on, you just ASSUME we are going to pick and choose. Ask anyone that has came out and see what they say.

It is NOT politics and buddies. In fact, I am really surprised at how many NEW and good (lots of years experiece and lots of kills) bowhunters have signed up and wanted to help out. Guess not everyone is interested in just complaining.

WMD,

The DCNR had to work very hard just to get acceptance from the local community to allow bowhunters in to start with. Oak Mountain is a VERY busy State Park, there are lots of user groups involved. Bowhunters are effective, acceptable, and safe. That is why they were chosen.


MarkBAMA,
I sure wish I had some of what you are drinking! LOL BHA membership is $15, we buy each member household a subscription to AON magazine. We donated about $4,000 to the Children's Hospital and about $5,000 to Big Brothers and Big Sisters. There are no paid officers or employees. The money donated to the charities came from 3D shoots. We are dang lucky to ever have over $500 in the checking account. The membership dues are used to purchase 3D targets and pay for the mag subscriptions. BHA is a non-profit. So, please quit with the we are making money comments. Unless of course, you just like to make ridiculous statements.

WIDGEON,

Well, not true. The money goes to the State Park for shutting down the park for the hunts. It doesn't go to the DCNR. Oak Mountain will charge each hunter $10 per hunt. Down from $50 last year. And in the past you had to puchase chances at $6 per. This year the application is free. The BHA membership is $15. So, it is much cheaper now. Funny, noone has commented on that.

SnapperSlapper,

Agenda? Are you serious? Just what agenda are you referring too? BHA was formed to promote bowhunting in Alabama. Are you against that?

I still have the red ass from 1991, sitting in an Ag Committee in Montgomery attempting to get the Handicapped Crossbow Bill off the ground along come BHA group of apx 15 to oppose... I took it personal even though we won... Still do... I would never join up with BHA, so I recon I won't get to hunt State Owned Public Land. Book

Book,

I have and am working to put the crossbow issue behind us. There are several hunters that will be chosen to hunt the Oak Mountain hunt and they will be hunting with crossbows. Seventeen years is a long time to hold a grudge against a good org on a single issue. Hope you will change your mind.

There are still many in BHA that think the crossbow is the antiChrist. LOL But, as time goes by the anger should fade and WE hunters need to work together.

There are alot of arguments on here based more on emotion than facts. Recommend you all do a little bit of research on the subject of Urban deer hunting/population control. You might find that the best run programs are a partnership between the state DNR equivalent and a strong bowhunting organization. The state park is public land and was not/is not "public hunting" land. BHA is giving you an opportunity (at much less cost than the state was previously charging-- do a little simple math) to be a part of the solution to an overpopulation problem. It seems a lot would rather moan and complain vice step up and help out.

David, I sat beside Riley Boykin Smith, in 2000, and helped him write the proposal to the state legislature that eventually got the crossbow regulations relaxed so that any medical doctor could write you a letter, which the DCNR commissioner would later sign, granting permission to use a crossbow. I was on the board of BHA at the time and had the full support of the membership. I don't know what hapened in 1991, but I can assure you that no one in BHA (While I was there) opposed the use of crossbows by handicapped persons.

Politics is a Crazy World... Way back in 91... I had never been involved in anything political other than voting... I joined up with a group The Alabama Handicapped Sportsmen after seeing a short spot on a local Tv station here in Bham. I went to a few meetings to discuss getting this thing off the ground and we were getting nowhere... Some Polition down around Eufalla was about to get set up the river, got behind another feller down that way and got a bill started to legalize the crossbow. We found out about the deal and meet with the Rep from Eufalla. I might be wrong but this guy was trying to get something positive on his record... Well anyway the first time we meet in the Ag Committee only about 1/2 of the state Reps show up, We have 3-5 boys from AHS show up and right before the first meeting the BHA guys come in 6-12 some all duded up, we know we are way outclassed. The thing gets defeated, but in comes the Rep from Eufalla who is not on this committee and gets the group od State Reps to meet back in a week and re-vote.... A week or two later we meet again, this time I think we only had 3-4 folks BHA had a bunch... The Rep from Eufalla shows up and openly tells the group he will support there bills if the help him with this one.... Several of the State Reps are with the BHA and tell the guy the won't go with him. We have open discussions where facts are brought out like deer will be getting killed at 300 yds with a crossbow... It was crazy, I had my say, and my message was you either for us or against us getting a chance to get back into the woods... Sometime in this process someone with the Consevation Dept. offers to give us a permit to hunt with a shotgun during bow season, I was against this due to the fact that No Hunting Club would like a feller gun hunting deer in bow season. We as AHS agreed this was not a very good option.... I remember asking the BHA why they would oppose this deal with the crossbow? I asked the lead mouth if he lost an arm what would he do and he says sit home till gun season.. I told the feller he didn't love it like I did.... Well my contribution did not add up to nothing.... The BHA had the spport of the Consevation Dept, we looked to be beat when one of the Reps from Bham asked the BHA how many black members they had, then asked how many black members we had. We had several they had none... The vote was close we had all the black reps and a couple of Reps that made deals with the Rep from Eufalla... I mean right before the vote a rep from somewhere asked the Eufalla guy if he was sure to help him with this certain bill, he said he would and the vote went our way... When the bill went to the floor I think we had only a couple votes against, something like 80 for it? I can't remember but it was very close to 100%.... Whats funny about this whole thing to me is the Original Crossbow Bill was very restrictive, It helped a few folks out, but alot were left out. The Bill didn't pass because the issue was discussed and the reps thought this was a good idea, or the Consevation Dept saw a need and helped... It passed only out of committee bacause a Rep from Eufalla was trying to stay out of the big house, and we had a few black members in AHS... Really I would never jion the BHA, but I know there are super folks in it.. The State Conservation Boys as the ones that should have been willing to help. How many deer do you think the first 200-500 handicapped crossbow permit holders killed? I know I have killed apx 50, I knew a bunch of fellers who had the permits, but never had bow hunted knew nothing much about it... I had no idea how screwed up politics was until my experience in Montgomery... When the new deal came out legalizing the crossbow without any discussion and was a suprise, even though I would have supported the deal, I could smell the backroom deals, and maybe some cash getting passed around... I do not hunt as much or as hard as I used to, I have been a few times this year. I never thought I could get burned out, but after 30 years of hunting I don't love it like I used to.... I like turkey hunting now more than bow season, and I would have never beieved that a few years back. Anyway thanks for helping some folks out Mr. Outback.... Book

Sounds like you were just as naive as I was, in the beginning.

It would completely baffle me how a good and honest idea good get so screwed up and lost in the enormity of totally ambiguous opposition.

I was happy to leave it behind and I've declined several invites to get back in the fight. Today I just want to go hunting.

Book,

I agree the system is gross. I will say this, BHA has grown and changed quite a bit since the early 90's. You would be surprised at all the good folks and great things we are doing now. We even have crossbow hunters as members and one is a life member. Attitudes change and people grow. The Oak Mountain hunt this year is a new twist on an existing hunt.

BHA is not making money on this deal. I assure you that our expenses will eat up the membership dues collected. And the hunt this year is cheaper than it was in years past.

If you want to take part in the hunt, please do. Don't let a single issue deter you from being part of a great org. God is the only perfect thing. The rest of us make mistakes and try to learn and grow. I am a Life Member in BHA, RMEF, NRA, AWF, etc.... I promise you, I don't agree with every step they take. But, I do support them for the long run.

Elkhunter, you da man!! I agree 100% with you!

Just a few weeks ago you told of a man that called and told you that he had killed several deer on Oak Mountain and you assured him that he would get to hunt. Isn't that you picking and choosing?

Dead horse, meet stick.

:rolleyes:

So is socialized medicine so I guess we should drop that too.

Just because it has been discussed, doesn't make what is happening right.

Giving the hunting priviledges on a piece of state owned property that the public has shown an interest in hunting to a group that can pick and choose who they want to let hunt is not right. If they needed to kill more deer, they could have more hunts or more hunters per hunt to try to meet their goal while still allowing all residents who are interested to have an equal opportunity to participate.

The continued picking gets old.

I did it, too. I said my piece about the bow hunt and moved on.

The first Advisory Board meeting will be in February. Anyone who doesn't like the park setup should make plans to attend and complain there, too.

Yep, it's his job to "pick and choose" who gets to hunt. Bottom line.....they want deer killed, PERIOD!!! They want hunters that can get the job done. This isn't a recreational hunt folks. It's a herd reduction. The way it was being run before wasn't getting the job done. Damn, folks will bitch about anything.

I don't believe that is 100% true Shaw. If they really just wanted deer killed, sharpshooters would be much more efficient.

I think most of us agree that access to hunting land is one of the biggest challenges our sport faces. Here we moved forward by the state opening state owned land for the public to hunt, only to have that progess taken away and given to a select group to chose who they think "qualifies" to hunt.


Big step backwards in my opinion.

I guess it is just impossible to make some of you happy. The guy you are referring to is a crossbow hunter that was very successful last year. I would be a complete idiot if I didn't pick him for the hunt.

I love folks complaining about something they know NOTHING about. So, far every hunter except one that has passed the proficiency test has been selected. So, that sorta blows the crap out of your "pick and choose" complaint doesn't it! You got anything else to complain about? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

That's exactly the point. Why should you get the authority to pick who hunts on land that is owned by all of us?

Before we had a fair, lottery type system. Now we have you picking who hunts.

Early in the post you said you didn't pick who hunted. Now you say you picked that guy.

Which is it?

Sure.....so is it first come first serve? Why was the one not picked?

Bad breath?

No it wasn't first come first served. If I had had to many folks show up I would have had to rank and select. We have had 93 pass. Not all of them can make all 4 hunts. So, it has worked out where we have the right number of hunters for the job without having to "pick & choose".

jcoffee, I sent you a PM about the reason. I don't want to post it here for obvious reasons.

Nope, he favored you!

I think it becomes a problem when a group that lobbies the gov't takes over a public hunt and requires anyone who wants to participate to join the group.The money you pay to join could be used to go against something you are for or vice versa.
You are just a number to the group.They use this to say "we have x number of members"to generate pull while lobbying.
If it is all about the betterment for OM, then why didn't BHA run it w/o the membership requirement and just let it be known they are the ones running it,and would like you to join.Alot of people would be more inclined to join on their own than it being forced upon them.The way it is now,it looks like a fund raiser for BHA,whether they make a penny from it or not.

Hindsight being what it is.

A solution to this whole issue would have been to drop the price from $50 to $25 without the $6 dollar app fee. Everyone that passed the test and was chosen to hunt would get a complimentary membership to BHA.

New member could have been picked up and people hunting would have paid less.

Everyone would be happy.(almost)

Nope, people would still whine and bitch about it. :rolleyes:

The fee was dropped from $50 to $10 per hunt and they still aren't happy.

Bama,

Just a number to the group! LOL Have you ever attended a BHA event before? Our members bend over backwards to make our events fun, safe, and focused on family. We are all volunteers.

When we were asked to do this by the DCNR, I started doing research on other states that had urban deer control programs. A group from PA was extremely helpful. But, they told me that we would get hammered by lots of folks about the program no matter how it was set up. He also told me that over 90% of the complaints would come from hunters. Damn, he was understating it. So far, we haven't had a single complaint from an anti!

As a matter of fact I was a member of BHA for awhile and was part of the Fayette Co. chapter events.I dropped it when was asked to help work a Sunday shoot at the BJCC,then being told after driving over there and paying to get in that "we have enough folks".That same year during multiround shoots at other chapters,you would see people looking for arrows behind targets.The same folks turned in perfect score cards.Then on the single round shoots they did good to score over 50%.If you complained you were considered "not part of the in crowd".You kinda get fed up with people cheating and noone to back up the rule book.

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.

Sharpshooters with guns(legal), silencers(legal), at night(legal) have already been used in the park to reduce numbers....

Sharpshooters were used quite effectively the first few years.

I'll say it again: I'm glad they're allowing hunting. But if they want to reduce numbers, bring in the scopes and bullets and close the park to kill the bony goats at night and also let the hunters participate during the day.

Wow, An opportunity is created for competent bowhunters vice hiring "sharpshooters" and some of you think that is a bad thing and want to badmouth the volunteer organization that is trying to make it happen best they can....


1. The point of the program is to thin the herd of deer in OMSP to carrying capacity NOT to create another hunting opportunity for the "public".

2. The park is public land NOT public "hunting" land.

Y'all need to do a little more research or critical thought on urban depredation (ie.. do you really want "just anybody" selected by a lottery/chance to be shooting at deer (or not) in a populated area? - Sounds irresponsible to me).
If your arguments aren't based on the facts of the issue and some research, they seem baseless and more or less sound like whining.


Now if you're just giving Barry a hard time for "sport" he's used to that (and sometimes he does deserve a good ribbing ) - but he deserves more support than tearing down for his efforts in this program and BHA. I'm sure he would appreciate constructive criticism or ideas to make the program (and BHA) better for its purpose, not necessarily better for a few individuals, much more than listening to people who complain because what seems to be best for the group isn't the best for them individually.

Thanks for the kind words DY!

All those years of going out in the back yard and argueing with my giant red oak tree has prepared me for these types of situations!

1) What's wrong with creating another public hunt while at the same time reducing the herd population. It's a known fact that access to hunting land is a problem in our sport.

2) The park for years has not been public hunting land. Now we have an opportunity to open up the park land to public hunting on a limited basis. Once it works in this part it may lead to opening up other parks creating more public hunting opportunities and again, addressing the major problem of access to hunting land.

I never said I had a problem with the competency test so I am not sure where your description of "just anybody" comes from. However, if more hunters qualify than their are spots to hunt, a lottery is the fair way to determine who hunts.

Maybe you should check out our neighbor GA who has been having hunts on their parks for several years. They don't seem to be having a problem including many firearms hunts while others are archery and I believe one may be primative weapons. They have created a great hunting opportunity and opened up a lot of land that had previously been off limits to hunters while at the same time helping to control the deer populations on their parks.

Where can I find this "known fact"?

Alabama has over 600 thousand acres of public hunting lands and there's something like 93 million acres across the lower 48 states, with much of it getting little or no hunting pressure.

How is access to public hunting a problem?

I keep hearing folks says that "hunter numbers are declining and we're loosing access to hunting lands". I'll agree that license sales are declining and it's more expensive to buy or lease land ... but neither of those are proof of loosing hunters or hunting land. In fact, all the evidence proves just the opposite.

I think the WMA's are prime for bowhunting. Hell, Black Warrior alone is over 90,000 acres and that doesn't include the access to the rest of Bankhead. If you are a bowhunter and have $20.00 to spare, there is plenty of land to hunt...

36 Alabama WMAs offer more than 768,000 acres of public hunting and access.

That does not include the refuges and national forests.

Hunting numbers are down "statistically." That's a fact.

It helps to say that, too, when Johnny's generation wants to play YouTube Rock Hero instead of coming in to grab the BB gun and go out in the field. But there is no field, the BB gun will get him arrested for possession of a weapon and Daddy's having to work his ass off because the economy sucks so they can't go hunting as often.

When they can go, the old Johnson place has been turned into a strip mall, the farmers who still have property lease the hunting rights to doctors from out of state or won't allow anyone on it due to liability and Daddy can't figure out how to take his kid on a public land gun hunt b/c he doesn't know the land and is afraid he'll get shot.

So they don't go. License sales decrease and people say there's no place to hunt.

Hunting numbers are down.

But that doesn't mean there are no places to hunt. You just have to put in some time, legwork, be appreciative of the spike or few does instead of the RackDaddyBigPecker wallhanger everyone believes is their God-given right to shoot in a 2-hour hunt and go do it.

And just how do you know that 80 won't show up? What if all 160 show up and you have to turn 80 around at 4:00 AM after they have taken off of work and driven a long way! I bet you would be dang popular then!

I have said it before and I am going to say it again. It is REAL easy to sit on the sidelines and complain. But, it is a entirely different ball game when you have to get in there and run the plays. The lottery wasn't working. If this doesn't work, I am sure the DCNR will try something else.

But, we are trying to do what was asked of us and we are going to try and make it a success. Each hunter had a choice to make, they could join in or sit out. I just don't understand those that want to sit out but still complain.

But, it is a entirely different ball game when you have to get in there and run the plays.

Can you check off at the line or do you have some scramblin' moves to get out of trouble?

I expected something from you on that one. Just like life, we have to make decisions as we go.

nobody got my point :rolleyes:

I got it. I just thought it was a brick!

You would since you head up BHA. :rolleyes:

1. Check the acres of public land available per hunter. And everywhere I've been stationed, a friendly request and an offer to do some work has found me plenty of hunting opportunities.( I do agree that it is a lot harder to find private opportunities than it used to be and that expensive leases exclude many folks that used to have access to property for free. On the other hand I have no shortage of offers to "help" me with the deer on my land in Ok. I don't really need any "help" killing the deer, I need help putting up stands, trimming lanes, planting food plots, general upkeep, mowing fields etc...only had one person take me up on that offer.....)
2. Right to start, then ....this is in an urban area and the "hunters" should be screened due to the close proximity to suburbia and the high possibility of critical scrutiny by antis/fence sitters (as in most states that have urban bowhunting opportunities).

Then - Why not choose the "best" based on competent reasoning vice a lottery??
Or Qualifying individuals based on shooting skills, committment to the cause and sportsmanship determined by references and an interview - then if too many remain - a random drawing for position on the hunt list.

Maybe Barry would be better off forming a private consulting firm to offer hired "sharpshooters" vice offering an opportunity to any SPORTSMAN who can shoot a bow competently.... He could make a lot of money and suffer a lot less grief!!

I am sorry you are upset. BHA was asked to help out and that is what we are going to do. I am sorry some seem to think this is wrong, but the lottery system wasn't providing the desired results. If this doesn't, I am sure the Commish will come up with another idea.

Barry is not offering an opportunity to any SPORTSMAN who can shoot a bow competently. He is offering the opportunity to those who can shoot a bow competently and who he picks. It worked out this year because there are not as many hunters wanting to hunt as there are spots to fill but that may not always be the case.

I am only asking that a lottery be used to pick from the pool of competent archers rather than an arbitrary system of someone "picking".

I also don't believe that you should be required to join a certain organization to be able to hunt on land that is owned by the public.

Conservation Advisory Board meeting will be February 2009, most likely in Montgomery at the Capitol Auditorium.

DCNR Commissioner - (334) 242-3486

Oh well, Guess you'd prefer to have a private company kill the deer in the public park... Never a 100% perfect solution to please everybody.

No....since the public owns the land I would like for the public to have an equal opportunity to hunt the land.

jlc,

If it was simply a public land hunt, I would agree. But, it is not.

Why didn't you apply this year? Is it because you dislike BHA? It can't be the money, it is cheaper now.

How many years have you been bowhunting? How many deer have you killed with a bow?

I just don't understand why you continue to complain. There has to be more than just the fact there isn't going to be a lottery this year.

The applicants that passed the proficiency test this year averaged 19 years experience bowhunting and averaged 42 deer bow kills. I think that is pretty good. I hope these hunters will take more deer off of the park. And that of course is the objective.

i don't give a crap how long anyone has hunted or how many deer they have killed with a bow. If it is state owned property, paid for by tax payers dollars, everyone that buys a license should have the same opportunity to be drawn to hunt the park. The BHA have found a way to make money off of the citizens by back dooring the process. Try to justify all you want, but everyone knows that the BHA saw green and went for the fence.
Getting the population under control by bowhunting is a big freaking joke. Just another way for money to be made, period.

Lets use the assets we have already paid for, the state employees of the DCNR ect. they can get the deer population under control in less than a month if they really wanted to.

Conservation Advisory Board meeting will be February 2009, most likely in Montgomery at the Capitol Auditorium.

DCNR Commissioner - (334) 242-3486

You couldn't be more wrong. Do you guys just make your arguments based on "what you think you know"? Or do you even bother trying to find out the facts?

Let's go over the FACTS again!
The DCNR asked BHA to handle the selection process!
The lottery system wasn't working!
Lots of the hunters selected under the lottery system were not showing up, were not staying through the hunt, and were not killing does when they had a chance.
Every bowhunter had a chance to apply.
BHA did exactly what was requested of them!
BHA hasn't been paid a single penny by the DCNR.
No BHA member or officer has been paid a single penny.
We have worked hard to make this work and have taken lots of criticism for trying to do as we were asked to do by the DCNR.

The lottery system was administered by a consulting company and they got a rake off of the application payments.
The lottery system was more expensive for the hunters!
The proficiency tests were administered during the week and more difficult to attend for the working folks.


So, I will be at the Feb 7th CAB meeting and I am sure this topic will come up. So, please bring your crying self to the meeting and make yourself heard! But, I doubt you will. I am guessing it is much easier for you to sit behind your keyboard and complain than it is to get out and do something constructive!

You know what? I am guessing that ya'll would still be complaining if BHA was doing this for free (no membership required)!

So, I have to ask myself; why? Are you concerned you wouldn't qualify (proficiency test)? Are you concerned you wouldn't be chosen? Are you just wanting to complain period?

So, let's put all the cards on the table!

Antlerhunter and jlccoffee,

Why didn't you apply? Don't be scared, tell us the truth!

I will be there if anyone needs a ride!

I do know this, BHA has got people to buy memberships through your association with the state Government. If you see nothing wrong with coat tailing on the government of this state that is funded by the tax payers, then so be it.

Appartently the management tools put in place are not being successful, so just let the state go in there and solve the problem quickly.

BTW, I have applied, and paid the state dept of conservation, for all of the hunts until this year. I am not going to pay for a membership to a private orginization in order to hunt property that I have already paid for by paying taxes every year. The state can deal with the problem themselves for all I care.

Sorry, I didn't understand your statement the first time I read it. Yes, we have had people join BHA as a result of this process. No, I don't see anything wrong with that.

So, why didn't you apply?

BTW, I have applied, and paid the State Dept of Conservation, for all of the hunts until this year.

Enough arguing about it here, we will just have to see what happens, and attend the CAB meeting to voice our opinions.