Invisible man said:
You can bet that the purpose of this poll is to figure out a way to better manage hunters and to somehow get more money out of the hunt community I do not believe that the reason for this survey is to come up with a better way to satisfy and make the hunters more happy. just my opinion but I've been trained to think that way by the San Diego Wildlife law enforcement. I guess that's not fair to say. they're not all bad I really have only met one dishonest agent.
I filled out the survey, but in the section where I was allowed to comment on my dissatisfaction with the management of the deer population, I mentioned the citation vs. education mindset of the wardens, as well as the corrupt (as in quail-poaching) wardens as some of my reasons for not being positive about it.
It's nice to be asked, but some of the questions they asked were worthless, so any responses they get will be meaningless.
Yes, we've been trained into being cynical. If the majority of the wardens approached their job the same way that Joseph Funk from BLM does, they would have my complete respect and support. But that's not the way it works here. Law enforcement today seems to be focused on citations and arrests as being evidence of a job well done. So the wardens aren't trying to educate, and the result (at least in my perspective) is that they create ill will, instead of garnering support. When I talk to people about BLM lands, and when I meet people on BLM lands, I pass along Ranger Funk's instructions about proper use of the resource, and encourage people to comply with his preferences- because he's trying to keep the resources open to our use. The reason I respect him is because when I once deserved a citation, he gave me a warning. And when others deserved a citation because they were breaking the regs (even after I warned them not to do so), he didn't run over there and cite them. That's resource management to me.
One thing in the survey that concerned me was the questions that had to do with the purchase of more lands for the purpose of habitat management. While I agree that deer need habitat for fawning, etc., I don't like the way those lands are managed in some cases. Predators run amok on some of those lands that are supposed to be set aside for fawning habitat, and yet those lands remain closed to predator hunting. So again, it seems like they're wanting more money to buy up more land, on which we won't be able to hunt.
Now, it didn't say that, but again, that's what the cynic in me reads between the lines. I don't like being the cynic, so if anybody has the scoop on what they're considering, I'd sure like to be corrected.
