Quote:
Originally Posted by Smalls
You still have to catch them out of season. You have to catch anyone in violation of a law. Doesn't matter if its in season or out of season.
So are you saying that if the science points to the need for a reduced limit, it should not be done because it would be "too difficult"? Then why does Texas do it? Why does any state do it? It seems to me if it were too difficult to enforce, no one would do it.
|
Science does not point to a reduced limit. Science points to a reduced harvest. The reduced harvest can be achieved by reducing the number of open days or by reducing the maximum allowed kill by one hunter during the season.
It isn't "too difficult" to enforce in every case, but it is more expensive to enforce. You feel free to refer to regulations in other states as proof that they are workable, but then criticize me when I bring up the higher implementation costs. Sure, Louisiana could make it work by selling $34 deer tags like Colorado does. I'm sure the extra $6 million in fees would cover the needed manpower. I haven't dug into the Texas implementation to see how they make their system work or handle the tradeoffs.
But the big question is why you don't think the scientific goal of limiting harvest in certain zones can be achieved by reducing open dates?
How far below 425 deer per season does Calcasieu need to go? How much below 75 deer per season does Cameron need to go? How many of those deer are actually deer #5 and deer #6 for a given hunter? If few hunters are even getting to 5 and 6 deer in zone 10, reducing open days is more likely to work, even without considering the added enforcement challenge of a tag based seasonal limit scheme.