But you can't believe that the only information they're going to use is from that meeting. If that was a case, they could just hold a vote there.And be done with it, but that's not the way the system works. I don't believe they ever go by popular opinion at these meetings. It's just one of the factors they consider. If wildlife management was done like that, we wouldn't have any wildlife.
We see it all the time for Wildlife management. Look at how many hunting seasons for bears and furbearers have been closed because of “popular opinion”.
And look at how many counties have rifles when they used to have shotguns.
And look at how many counties have rifles when they used to have shotguns. You know, rifles in Iowa was a political decision. Not a wildlife science-based decision.
You lost me there. The majority of the people speaking at the March 3 meeting were in favor of rifles.
Simply that hunters at meetings often get things ramrodded through. Sometimes. But not this time. Yet.
I don’t agree with that.
They were going against the opinion of the people at the meeting. That is not the opinion of the people. And if they are any good, they only consider the opinion of the people at the meeting. They should not march to their drum.
This is obviously pointless, but Once again…who are you to assume that? If the commissioner hears from 100 people and 90 of them are for rifles he may have to go against his beliefs unless he can show evidence to support his decision. at the meeting on March 3 the majority of the comments were for rifles. If the commissioners had opinions to the contrary from other public forums, interactions with other residents or what not they should say so. But by the minutes of March 3 meeting it appears they just threw all statements from citizens who attended the meeting out the window and voted on their personal feelings.
Deer "farmers" maybe. Most other farmers want more deer killed and would definitely be in favor of rifles. Especially around the southeast where farmers lose a considerable portion of crops to deer and other wildlife each year
Thst would be nice, but my long impression from locals there is farmers rarely allow publuc access and there is a fair amount of public land with poor access unless you can cross private fields.
This is an area that has allowed 5+ deer per year for nearly 30 years, 3 bucks per year for like 5 years, and has had extra disease management season that are essentially unlimited for close to 10 years. It hasn't made a noticeable dent in the population.
Because of lack of access.
