Friday, November 26, 2010
2010 NCBA Member Hunt At Butner, NC
The “official” dates for the Butner hunt were October 16-24, 2010. Campers setup Saturday, October 16th and (campsites are 1st come, 1st served) hunted throughout the entire week. The Big Buck, Biggest Doe contest runs Oct.21-23. NCBA provided a free “Pig Pickin” Friday night at the Lake Butner Boat Launch Pavilion. The Butner Hunt ‘Shoot-Out’ was also be held for bragging rights, one-of-kind hat and a plaque for compound and traditional classes. This year’s Memorial was for the late Roger Duggins, long time supporter of the NCBA and NCBA Life Member. All proceeds will go toward the Memorial Fund in his name.
Kevin Dancy won the "Traditional" competition. David "Binky" Soots won the "Compound" competition in the 3rd annual "Butner Shootout".
Jeff Black won the "Big Doe" award and Scott Kazmierczak won the drawing for the "Big Buck" award, as no one shot a 6 point buck or larger.
******************************************************************
Directions to Campground:
We will be at the same campground as last year. Signs are posted at entrance to campsite. An aerial map is shown below.
GPS Coordinates at GATE entrance off Old Hwy. 75 (Durham/Oxford Hwy.) are: N36-10’-101.4 and W78-45’-327.8
Camp Rules and Regulations:
1- No public display of alcohol.
2- Parking ONLY permitted in the field area. No parking/camping/blocking the flagged emergency access lane.
3- If the gate at the road is closed when you come in or go out, close it behind you.
4- All vehicles camping must display NCBA sign.
5- Please abide by all NCWRC game land regulations. If unsure, ASK!!
6- Campers, ALL GARBAGE MUST BE TAKEN WITH YOU! Leave campsites cleaner than you found it.
Big Buck and Biggest Doe Contest – Thurs thru Sat (Oct 22nd -23rd -24th )
1. CONTEST ELIGIBILITY:
a. REGISTER FOR THE HUNT b.NCBA ACTIVE MEMBER c, DEER MUST BE TAKEN ON GAMELANDS!
2. Bucks must have 6 scorable points by Pope & Young system rules.
3. Does are live weight, do not field dress your doe. If tie, will take “Green’ Skull measurement score.
3. If no entries in either category, all “registered” hunters names will be placed in a drawing for the prizes.
Butner Hunt “Shoot-Out” Contest
Again there is will be bragging rights for best score in COMPOUND and TRADITIONAL.
Rules at registration area.. All proceeds go to NCBA Memorial Endowment Fund in memory of: Roger Duggins.
ANY Questions:contact Huntmaster: Wayne Smith; 336-362-9469.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Role of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
What "role" should the members of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission be fulfilling in the operation of our wildlife agency? Is the manner in which commissioners are chosen and appointed best for our wildlife resources?.. for wildlife constituents?.. and even for the overall health and well-being of the agency itself? Do we even need a wildlife resources commission?
These questions arise often, and specially in the past couple years as commissioners, agency staff and "We the People (outdoorsmen and women)" struggled with a number of issues concerning management of primarily deer, bear and wild turkey in N.C.
Currently, we have nineteen (19) politically appointed wildlife commissioners. Is this enough?.. too many?.. or is this number "just about right?" Seven or eight of the positions have been added within the last decade or so. All these new positions are "at large" appointments made by either the Governor, Speaker of the House or President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Politics being as it is, this makes sense to some extent. But, a few things really bother me about all these appointments.
First thing that pops out at me is that almost, if not all of these "at large" appointments are from the eastern area of the state, in and east of Raleigh. This creates a significant imbalance in representation for sportsmen/women in other areas of the state. And, it does make a difference in that the views of outdoorsmen/women in the east vastly differ from those of the central and western areas of the state.
The second thing that comes to mind is that none of our wildlife commissioners are wildlife biologists. Most, if not all are business men. This prepares them well for ruling on fiscal and budgetary issues, but when it comes to setting actual wildlife management rules, regulations and policies, they often seem to make decisions based on unpopular ideas that are often not recommended by the WRC's biological staff, or favored by a significant majority of their constituents. The WRC administration sometimes agrees with them for whatever reasons. Maybe just to keep peace, or rack up "brownie points" with commission leaders who possess the power to discipline them if they disagree too often, or disagree on the wrong issue.
I don't know what the annual payroll of our WRC biologist staff is. My guess is that it is in excess of 2 million dollars. I think that would be a very conservative number. It is public information, so we should be able to find out if we asked. Whatever it is, I'm sure our professional staff of biologists are paid a comfortable living wage. The amount really doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that these people are educated professionals in their field of endeavor, and when they spend a lot of valuable time preparing reports and making recommendations to the commissioners that could drastically effect the future of our wildlife resources, these recommendations sometime are not approved as recommended, or not approved at all. The majority of the time they are approved as submitted, or with minor changes, and that is good for all involved. Other times, it seems they approve, or have submited proposals themselves that conflict with those of the staff, possibly based on feedback they receive from some constituents, their own personal friends, or maybe from people in the business community.
Many sportmen/women feel that something must change. We have to get back to basics in the operation of our wildlife agency. We must pay more attention to what our wildlife professionals have to say about how to best manage our wildlife resources.
Many feel very strongly that we should also move back in the direction of electing our wildlife commissioners to office, rather than allowing the political party in power to appoint people for whatever reasons. It should be non-partisan. There's no place for politics in the management of our wildlife resources, or the agency itself. Possibly having a few former (retired?) wildlife biologists on the commission would be a good thing to consider too?
NCBA officers and members have been attending wildlife commission meetings for years. We hear questions and comments from commissioners time to time that clearly indicate their lack of knowledge about various issues. Some obviously come to meetings unprepared, having not read the material provided to them by the staff. If they don't have time to devote to their appointed duties, they should voluntarily resign and vacate their position on the commission to someone who has time and is willing to put forth the effort to serve.
Commissioners did recently approve a new proposal submitted by the staff that will establish a procedure for evaluating proposals for managing whitetail deer. On it's face, it looks very promising. Time will tell whether or not the commissioners choose to utilize it. There is one thing they removed from the proposal that we think should have been included. There was a three year "waiting period" for making new deer management proposed changes after any major changes were implemented. The staff would have preferred to have a five year period to observe and evaluate major management changes, but opted to reduce this to three years in hopes that the commissioners would agree. They didn't. It appears that some still want complete control over making any and all changes to deer management regulations, whether or not the staff recommends it, or it comes from some other source. This mentality must change to ensure that our wildlife resources and our agency is managed in the best possible manner.
So, what is in store in the immediate future? Politics being what it is, the tides change from time to time. For the first time in over one hundred years, a different political party will be in complete control of our state legislature. We will have a new Speaker of the House and a new President of the Senate. I've been told that these men will be making up to maybe eight new appointments to the wildlife commission in early 2011. Let's hope they choose their appointments wisely and make them in the best interest of the resource and the agency and staff that works so diligently to make it the best it can be.
Ramon Bell, President/NC Bowhunters Association
These questions arise often, and specially in the past couple years as commissioners, agency staff and "We the People (outdoorsmen and women)" struggled with a number of issues concerning management of primarily deer, bear and wild turkey in N.C.
Currently, we have nineteen (19) politically appointed wildlife commissioners. Is this enough?.. too many?.. or is this number "just about right?" Seven or eight of the positions have been added within the last decade or so. All these new positions are "at large" appointments made by either the Governor, Speaker of the House or President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Politics being as it is, this makes sense to some extent. But, a few things really bother me about all these appointments.
First thing that pops out at me is that almost, if not all of these "at large" appointments are from the eastern area of the state, in and east of Raleigh. This creates a significant imbalance in representation for sportsmen/women in other areas of the state. And, it does make a difference in that the views of outdoorsmen/women in the east vastly differ from those of the central and western areas of the state.
The second thing that comes to mind is that none of our wildlife commissioners are wildlife biologists. Most, if not all are business men. This prepares them well for ruling on fiscal and budgetary issues, but when it comes to setting actual wildlife management rules, regulations and policies, they often seem to make decisions based on unpopular ideas that are often not recommended by the WRC's biological staff, or favored by a significant majority of their constituents. The WRC administration sometimes agrees with them for whatever reasons. Maybe just to keep peace, or rack up "brownie points" with commission leaders who possess the power to discipline them if they disagree too often, or disagree on the wrong issue.
I don't know what the annual payroll of our WRC biologist staff is. My guess is that it is in excess of 2 million dollars. I think that would be a very conservative number. It is public information, so we should be able to find out if we asked. Whatever it is, I'm sure our professional staff of biologists are paid a comfortable living wage. The amount really doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that these people are educated professionals in their field of endeavor, and when they spend a lot of valuable time preparing reports and making recommendations to the commissioners that could drastically effect the future of our wildlife resources, these recommendations sometime are not approved as recommended, or not approved at all. The majority of the time they are approved as submitted, or with minor changes, and that is good for all involved. Other times, it seems they approve, or have submited proposals themselves that conflict with those of the staff, possibly based on feedback they receive from some constituents, their own personal friends, or maybe from people in the business community.
Many sportmen/women feel that something must change. We have to get back to basics in the operation of our wildlife agency. We must pay more attention to what our wildlife professionals have to say about how to best manage our wildlife resources.
Many feel very strongly that we should also move back in the direction of electing our wildlife commissioners to office, rather than allowing the political party in power to appoint people for whatever reasons. It should be non-partisan. There's no place for politics in the management of our wildlife resources, or the agency itself. Possibly having a few former (retired?) wildlife biologists on the commission would be a good thing to consider too?
NCBA officers and members have been attending wildlife commission meetings for years. We hear questions and comments from commissioners time to time that clearly indicate their lack of knowledge about various issues. Some obviously come to meetings unprepared, having not read the material provided to them by the staff. If they don't have time to devote to their appointed duties, they should voluntarily resign and vacate their position on the commission to someone who has time and is willing to put forth the effort to serve.
Commissioners did recently approve a new proposal submitted by the staff that will establish a procedure for evaluating proposals for managing whitetail deer. On it's face, it looks very promising. Time will tell whether or not the commissioners choose to utilize it. There is one thing they removed from the proposal that we think should have been included. There was a three year "waiting period" for making new deer management proposed changes after any major changes were implemented. The staff would have preferred to have a five year period to observe and evaluate major management changes, but opted to reduce this to three years in hopes that the commissioners would agree. They didn't. It appears that some still want complete control over making any and all changes to deer management regulations, whether or not the staff recommends it, or it comes from some other source. This mentality must change to ensure that our wildlife resources and our agency is managed in the best possible manner.
So, what is in store in the immediate future? Politics being what it is, the tides change from time to time. For the first time in over one hundred years, a different political party will be in complete control of our state legislature. We will have a new Speaker of the House and a new President of the Senate. I've been told that these men will be making up to maybe eight new appointments to the wildlife commission in early 2011. Let's hope they choose their appointments wisely and make them in the best interest of the resource and the agency and staff that works so diligently to make it the best it can be.
Ramon Bell, President/NC Bowhunters Association
Friday, July 16, 2010
President's Message. "The Real Losers are.." (July 16, 2010)
President's Message: "The Real Losers are.." (July 16, 2010)
The Real "Losers" as a result of new WRC Regs are..
This quote was included in an article that was in the Raleigh N&O written by Javier Serna (7-14-2010.)
"Our goal is to provide as much opportunity as we can for our sportsmen and women," said Wes Seegars, a commissioner from Goldsboro.
This statement confirms what many have been saying all along about all the new WRC rules... that they will have a negative effect on the resource. This is because the extended gun (ML) season, as well as the legalization of crossbows, and unlimited daily and annual bag limits will result in an undesired over harvest of buck deer, and all deer in general. Specifically, immature buck deer will be over harvested.
The fact is that the opportunity to hunt already exists, if hunters were willing to put forth the time and effort to become proficient with a bow and arrow.
There are basically only two "opportunities" that we must have in order to satisfy the needs of both the resource and hunters, preferably, in this order:
(1)- ACCESS to lands to hunt.
(2)-A bonafide QUALITY DEER/BUCK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM created by the WRC. The cost would be minimal, and sincere deer hunters would gladly comply with rules designed to accomplish this goal.
REF (1).. ACCESS: Landowners could be enticed and persuaded to open their properties to hunters by offering the right incentives to do so. A tax break would be a good starter. Other states have programs that reach out to landowners to persuade them to provide access to their lands to hunters. This could be managed and monitored through the WRC's "Registered Lands Program." They could make "Trespass Permits" available to individuals on a daily/weekly/seasonal basis for those who couldn't afford to buy/lease their own property, or join an expensive hunt club. I'm sure there are other options that would be attractive for landowners to allow more hunting. NCBA provides $100,000 hunter liability insurance to all its members. This covers them while bow and gun hunting. This perk for our members is a plus when we seek permission to hunt property.
REF (2).. This is where we, NCBA and 80% of licensed hunters, find us in opposition to the goals of our WRC. As they state, they want to " provide as much opportunity as we can for our sportsmen and women." What this really means is that they want to provide as much opportunity "to kill deer" as they can for hunters.
We (NCBA) and the majority of the WRC's licensed hunting constituency, want to take this a step further and maximize the opportunities for all to:
(a)- Have a "quality hunting experience"; and:
(b)- Increase the opportunities to "see more quality bucks while hunting."
These can only be accomplished if the WRC takes the initiative to implement rules that will help accomplish these goals for all hunters, not just the few who can afford it. These goals cannot be accomplished on a broad basis by individual landowners. Not everyone has access to thousands of acres that can be individually managed. Most don't have the money or time to do this to begin with. Quality deer management by individuals works for the "haves" in this respect. It doesn't work for the "have-nots", which includes most of us. The majority of hunters must rely on hunting public lands or, if they're lucky, they may have "permission" to hunt a 50 acre tract that is surrounded by other similar size tracts of land that are hunted by other hunters. Quality deer management will not work under these conditions. Such is the case across the state, and especially in piedmont and mountain areas. There's just not that many large tracts of land that are available for the average hunter to access.
For as long as we have been monitoring the activities of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, their primary goal in managing deer has been to "put the resource first" in the decision making process to manage our wildlife resources. This doesn't appear to be the case now. Increasing the muzzle loader season by one week and legalizing crossbows for everyone, even during the bow only season is not putting the "resource first." It is putting "people first." Many of our own NCWRC biologists fear that these two new rules will result in an undesirable increase in harvest of immature buck deer. This is the primary reason why they opposed these two rules. This, at a time when the WRC wants to attract new hunters and retain old hunters to help pump up revenue the department needs. Any reduction in the numbers of quality buck deer will only serve to reduce interest in deer hunting for both new and existing licensed hunters.
The blanket legalization of crossbows for everyone also eliminates, by default, the provision under N.C. General Statute 113-296 that has provided a special privilege for disabled sportsmen since this law took effect in 1993. There are over 17,000 hunters who possess the "disabled sportsman permit" in N.C. who will no longer be able to enjoy this one privilege reserved for them. The big winners are the manufacturers who will make lots of money selling crossbows, primarily to gun hunters who view this as an opportunity to hunt during bow season and kill a big buck. Again, the resource will be the primary loser, along with bowhunters, disabled hunters and all deer hunters in the long run.
Sunday bowhunting alone, will not have a negative impact on the quality of the buck population. But, now, with the inclusion of crossbows for everyone, we could see another significant increase in the buck harvest. Conventional bowhunting is not a big factor in deer harvest. Less than 10% of all deer harvested in N.C. are taken with bow and arrow, and only about 36% of the archery harvest is antlered bucks vs. "about" 50-55% for firearms hunters. That extra 15-20% by gun hunters is a lot of bucks when comparing real total harvest numbers of bow to gun hunters. You can access these numbers in the back of the WRC's Regulations Digest and compare them yourself.
Another change that could have a significant impact on our overall deer herd is the removal of daily and annual bag limits. We simply could kill too many deer in some areas. Some hunters may not put forth the required effort to retrieve deer because they know they can climb back in their stands and continue to hunt. Were all these factors considered when all these new regulations were adopted?
Stats from other states that have good quality buck programs concentrate on lower buck bag limits and scheduling gun seasons to occur after the whitetail "rut". This is the primary reasons why they have premier trophy buck hunting, and why many hunters from other states, including N.C., go to these states, like Ohio, Illinois, Iowa and Kansas to hunt every year, and spend their money.
Quality bucks are more than just a resource. They are a "treasure" that will attract many hunters into the woods to hunt. This could be the case in North Carolina. But our WRC doesn't seem to view managing our deer herd this way. They just seem to want to "kill more deer".. any deer.. in any way possible.
Time will tell the tale of what impact these new rules will have on our deer herd and hunter numbers. Many hope that if the results are not good, our WRC will seriously look at scaling back some of these rules in the future. And implement new rules more in favor of improving the quality and sustainability of the resource.
We look forward to continuing to try to work with our wildlife professionals and our WRC in achieving workable goals that meet the needs of the resource, and the desires of the hunting constituency in North Carolina, in that order.
Ramon Bell
President, NC Bowhunters Association
The Real "Losers" as a result of new WRC Regs are..
This quote was included in an article that was in the Raleigh N&O written by Javier Serna (7-14-2010.)
"Our goal is to provide as much opportunity as we can for our sportsmen and women," said Wes Seegars, a commissioner from Goldsboro.
This statement confirms what many have been saying all along about all the new WRC rules... that they will have a negative effect on the resource. This is because the extended gun (ML) season, as well as the legalization of crossbows, and unlimited daily and annual bag limits will result in an undesired over harvest of buck deer, and all deer in general. Specifically, immature buck deer will be over harvested.
The fact is that the opportunity to hunt already exists, if hunters were willing to put forth the time and effort to become proficient with a bow and arrow.
There are basically only two "opportunities" that we must have in order to satisfy the needs of both the resource and hunters, preferably, in this order:
(1)- ACCESS to lands to hunt.
(2)-A bonafide QUALITY DEER/BUCK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM created by the WRC. The cost would be minimal, and sincere deer hunters would gladly comply with rules designed to accomplish this goal.
REF (1).. ACCESS: Landowners could be enticed and persuaded to open their properties to hunters by offering the right incentives to do so. A tax break would be a good starter. Other states have programs that reach out to landowners to persuade them to provide access to their lands to hunters. This could be managed and monitored through the WRC's "Registered Lands Program." They could make "Trespass Permits" available to individuals on a daily/weekly/seasonal basis for those who couldn't afford to buy/lease their own property, or join an expensive hunt club. I'm sure there are other options that would be attractive for landowners to allow more hunting. NCBA provides $100,000 hunter liability insurance to all its members. This covers them while bow and gun hunting. This perk for our members is a plus when we seek permission to hunt property.
REF (2).. This is where we, NCBA and 80% of licensed hunters, find us in opposition to the goals of our WRC. As they state, they want to " provide as much opportunity as we can for our sportsmen and women." What this really means is that they want to provide as much opportunity "to kill deer" as they can for hunters.
We (NCBA) and the majority of the WRC's licensed hunting constituency, want to take this a step further and maximize the opportunities for all to:
(a)- Have a "quality hunting experience"; and:
(b)- Increase the opportunities to "see more quality bucks while hunting."
These can only be accomplished if the WRC takes the initiative to implement rules that will help accomplish these goals for all hunters, not just the few who can afford it. These goals cannot be accomplished on a broad basis by individual landowners. Not everyone has access to thousands of acres that can be individually managed. Most don't have the money or time to do this to begin with. Quality deer management by individuals works for the "haves" in this respect. It doesn't work for the "have-nots", which includes most of us. The majority of hunters must rely on hunting public lands or, if they're lucky, they may have "permission" to hunt a 50 acre tract that is surrounded by other similar size tracts of land that are hunted by other hunters. Quality deer management will not work under these conditions. Such is the case across the state, and especially in piedmont and mountain areas. There's just not that many large tracts of land that are available for the average hunter to access.
For as long as we have been monitoring the activities of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, their primary goal in managing deer has been to "put the resource first" in the decision making process to manage our wildlife resources. This doesn't appear to be the case now. Increasing the muzzle loader season by one week and legalizing crossbows for everyone, even during the bow only season is not putting the "resource first." It is putting "people first." Many of our own NCWRC biologists fear that these two new rules will result in an undesirable increase in harvest of immature buck deer. This is the primary reason why they opposed these two rules. This, at a time when the WRC wants to attract new hunters and retain old hunters to help pump up revenue the department needs. Any reduction in the numbers of quality buck deer will only serve to reduce interest in deer hunting for both new and existing licensed hunters.
The blanket legalization of crossbows for everyone also eliminates, by default, the provision under N.C. General Statute 113-296 that has provided a special privilege for disabled sportsmen since this law took effect in 1993. There are over 17,000 hunters who possess the "disabled sportsman permit" in N.C. who will no longer be able to enjoy this one privilege reserved for them. The big winners are the manufacturers who will make lots of money selling crossbows, primarily to gun hunters who view this as an opportunity to hunt during bow season and kill a big buck. Again, the resource will be the primary loser, along with bowhunters, disabled hunters and all deer hunters in the long run.
Sunday bowhunting alone, will not have a negative impact on the quality of the buck population. But, now, with the inclusion of crossbows for everyone, we could see another significant increase in the buck harvest. Conventional bowhunting is not a big factor in deer harvest. Less than 10% of all deer harvested in N.C. are taken with bow and arrow, and only about 36% of the archery harvest is antlered bucks vs. "about" 50-55% for firearms hunters. That extra 15-20% by gun hunters is a lot of bucks when comparing real total harvest numbers of bow to gun hunters. You can access these numbers in the back of the WRC's Regulations Digest and compare them yourself.
Another change that could have a significant impact on our overall deer herd is the removal of daily and annual bag limits. We simply could kill too many deer in some areas. Some hunters may not put forth the required effort to retrieve deer because they know they can climb back in their stands and continue to hunt. Were all these factors considered when all these new regulations were adopted?
Stats from other states that have good quality buck programs concentrate on lower buck bag limits and scheduling gun seasons to occur after the whitetail "rut". This is the primary reasons why they have premier trophy buck hunting, and why many hunters from other states, including N.C., go to these states, like Ohio, Illinois, Iowa and Kansas to hunt every year, and spend their money.
Quality bucks are more than just a resource. They are a "treasure" that will attract many hunters into the woods to hunt. This could be the case in North Carolina. But our WRC doesn't seem to view managing our deer herd this way. They just seem to want to "kill more deer".. any deer.. in any way possible.
Time will tell the tale of what impact these new rules will have on our deer herd and hunter numbers. Many hope that if the results are not good, our WRC will seriously look at scaling back some of these rules in the future. And implement new rules more in favor of improving the quality and sustainability of the resource.
We look forward to continuing to try to work with our wildlife professionals and our WRC in achieving workable goals that meet the needs of the resource, and the desires of the hunting constituency in North Carolina, in that order.
Ramon Bell
President, NC Bowhunters Association
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)