So you’re in favor of being able to use bolts if I want to?
-
The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
-
We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules
Spikes, Bolts, and Screw in Steps
- Thread starter gcr0003
- Start date
So you’re in favor of being able to use bolts if I want to?
I didn’t say age was a requirement.
I didn’t tell you how to hunt. But the whole thread indeed IS about telling me how to hunt.
Climbing trees might make you specifically better at killing deer. It’s entirely plausible you could kill as many and as big of deer with the same amount of time/money/effort, or less, than you do climbing trees. It’s not worth hashing out here. But it certainly has no bearing on whether MOST hunters do better because they climb trees. I’m willing to bet most are worse hunters specifically because they climb trees.
All that aside, the point of what i was saying was to have less rules. A by product of that, potentially, maybe, possibly, would be to make it harder for some small portion of physically impaired people to have success killing deer. This could be mitigated by already existing framework(handicap trails, letting older folks have a ladder stand up all season, etc).
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 968
yes. 100% . I'm in favor of you using whatever climbing method you choose.
Sometimes.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 968
But you did tell me how to hunt or are at least in favor of a 24 hour rule. I'm obviously opposed to that or ANY new rules that tell me how to hunt. It's a slippery slope. Don't get me started on gun control but it's the same thing. You give an inch and they will take a mile. Pretty soon you got nothing.
The whole thread IS about telling US how to hunt. I make the decisions of how and when I hunt for the most part. An 88 year man has at least earned the right to choose if he want to hunt out of a ladder stand or a ground blind. His decision not mine. (maybe his wife's though! LOL) I say go hunt.
there has been a 24 he rule in MD for my entire 30+ yrs of hunting. It not only is feasible but I would argue is supported by the majority of hunters in MD. This past year DNR looked at allowing stands to be left on public land from two weeks prior to two weeks post season. The public comments from hunters were overwhelmingly against allowing that. It’s not a feasible or fair issue it’s just a tradition issue.
Iron_llama
Well-Known Member
Landowners should be able to specify how their land is used. This includes public land.
Not all public land is the same. Some is managed for timber. Some is managed for wildlife. Some is managed for recreation. Some is managed to eliminate invasive species or re-establish extirpated native species. Some is managed for scientific purposes. Most is managed for some combination of uses. Some lands are purchased by the legislature for a specific purpose clearly described in statute. The land managers responsible for executing that specific property's management plan have, and ought to have, the authority necessary to manage the lands they are responsible for as provided for by the various laws and regulations.
In MN, rural school districts are funded by timber leases. Certain parcels are maintained as forest land and timber companies can log them off; the proceeds of these timber sales go directly to the school district. In many cases, the tax base is too poor to fund the schools effectively solely with tax levies. In this light, it's entirely reasonable for the land managers to ban anything that penetrates the bark of a tree and avoid the issue of people leaving screw-in steps in trees altogether. In designated wilderness areas, the law requires minimal human impact on the landscape; land managers may reasonably interpret this obligation to ban certain hunting or tree climbing methods. Along the North Shore of Lake Superior, the USFS - Superior National Forest is trying to re-establish the white pine forest consumed a century ago by the logging industry; they have a 100+ year plan to restore the ancient forest, and hopefully bring back the moose and caribou that used to live there. We taxpayers are paying a sizeable chunk of money to accomplish this. The SNF is open to hunting, with minimal restrictions - IIRC, you have to remove your stand within a week of the end of archery season (31DEC, so NLT 07JAN).
If I were a land manager and somebody was being a pain in my neck over tree spikes or bolts or whatever other demands they had, I'd be inclined to either ban hunting altogether, or make it such an inconvenience they hunted somewhere else. Yes, bolts are great. Yes, climbing gaffs are great. Yes, ladder stands are convenient. But when we become unwilling to share public lands with people who want to use them differently than we do, or disrespect the managers responsible for balancing competing management objectives, or pick selfish fights over relatively minor restrictions, we screw things up for everyone, including ourselves.
Not all public land is the same. Some is managed for timber. Some is managed for wildlife. Some is managed for recreation. Some is managed to eliminate invasive species or re-establish extirpated native species. Some is managed for scientific purposes. Most is managed for some combination of uses. Some lands are purchased by the legislature for a specific purpose clearly described in statute. The land managers responsible for executing that specific property's management plan have, and ought to have, the authority necessary to manage the lands they are responsible for as provided for by the various laws and regulations.
In MN, rural school districts are funded by timber leases. Certain parcels are maintained as forest land and timber companies can log them off; the proceeds of these timber sales go directly to the school district. In many cases, the tax base is too poor to fund the schools effectively solely with tax levies. In this light, it's entirely reasonable for the land managers to ban anything that penetrates the bark of a tree and avoid the issue of people leaving screw-in steps in trees altogether. In designated wilderness areas, the law requires minimal human impact on the landscape; land managers may reasonably interpret this obligation to ban certain hunting or tree climbing methods. Along the North Shore of Lake Superior, the USFS - Superior National Forest is trying to re-establish the white pine forest consumed a century ago by the logging industry; they have a 100+ year plan to restore the ancient forest, and hopefully bring back the moose and caribou that used to live there. We taxpayers are paying a sizeable chunk of money to accomplish this. The SNF is open to hunting, with minimal restrictions - IIRC, you have to remove your stand within a week of the end of archery season (31DEC, so NLT 07JAN).
If I were a land manager and somebody was being a pain in my neck over tree spikes or bolts or whatever other demands they had, I'd be inclined to either ban hunting altogether, or make it such an inconvenience they hunted somewhere else. Yes, bolts are great. Yes, climbing gaffs are great. Yes, ladder stands are convenient. But when we become unwilling to share public lands with people who want to use them differently than we do, or disrespect the managers responsible for balancing competing management objectives, or pick selfish fights over relatively minor restrictions, we screw things up for everyone, including ourselves.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 968
Thank goodness I ain't moving to MD anytime soon. That's why I moved to Montana, too many rules in Jersey. Thankfully Jersey didn't have a 24 hour rule. Maybe they will after this thread! LOL
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 968
On land that is being managed for timber, those sound like reasonable restrictions. I have no problem taking down my stand after the season.
Maybe they should get rid of the wolves or at least hunt some of them. That might help the moose and caribou. They are eating machines.
Iron_llama
Well-Known Member
That's a whole other debate. Yes, absolutely, I agree, and not just because I want a MN wolf rug on my wall. It seems like we made a choice between wolves and moose, and now we're shocked we don't have hardly any moose left. No, wait, that can't be it, global warming! Phew! Almost felt like policies had unintended consequences for a minute!
I'll stop before I derail this thread even further.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 968
It's definitely a debate here. At least we get to get rid of a few here. However we can't keep up. There are too few guys hunting and trapping them. they are smart and hard to kill. Yet The treehuggers want to have them relisted like they are some sort of trouble. The Population is growing every year and likewise the game population is declining in areas that traditionally had good hunting. Now we have resident hunters that are travel hundreds of miles to other areas of the state because wolves have decimated their local elk herds. Consequently, those woods are getting over pressured.
In your situation, that sounds just like a politician. Enact rules and restrictions on hunting in the name of timber management to bring the moose and caribou back when the REAL problem is that there are too many wolves. They just don't want to admit they were wrong in the 1st place. Makes perfect sense! LOL
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2021
- Messages
- 2,212
I just found this thread and feel vindicated…