DmDuck
Elite Refuge Member
Here's the never ending debate ....
Should there be hunting allowed on Federal Wildlife Refuges ?
Should there be hunting allowed on Federal Wildlife Refuges ?
Refuge Hunting
- Thread starter DmDuck
- Start date
AvianQuest
Elite Refuge Member
I think you will find that hunting is allowed on ALL National Wildlife Refuges here in Texas...
If anyone knows of a NWR where hunting is not allowed, it would be interesting to find out why.
I know there are some where hunting just wouldn't be worthwhile.
If anyone knows of a NWR where hunting is not allowed, it would be interesting to find out why.
I know there are some where hunting just wouldn't be worthwhile.
ORgooseslayer
Senior Refuge Member
I sit in the middle of 2 good size refuges here in the Pacific Northwest of Oregon. Can't hunt them, just have to ogle over the thousands of birds that fill them each year. I personally would love to be able to hunt them, but we are the land of the tree huggin, animal lover society. So I highly doubt we will ever see it.
PlushHunter
Elite Refuge Member
From oregon here also and Hart Mtn Antelope Refuge Holds a junk load of ducks geese and doves but only birds they let u hunt on it is chukars and only on the face ...
whats up with this a antelope refuge that wont even let u kill waterfowl and wont let u shoot cyotes eather this kinda makes me mad every time i go up there and see baby antelope i always see cyotes sneekin on them in groups of 3's
whats up with this a antelope refuge that wont even let u kill waterfowl and wont let u shoot cyotes eather this kinda makes me mad every time i go up there and see baby antelope i always see cyotes sneekin on them in groups of 3's
Lame-Duck
Elite Refuge Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2001
- Messages
- 26,840
- Reaction score
- 1,486
In California we are allowed to hunt National Wildlife Refuges. I'm definitely in favor of it.
silvermallard
Elite Refuge Member
The National Wildlife Refuge system, by charter, REQUIRES that 40% of each refuge be managed for public hunting. Now, the biologist in charge has some latitude in determining which 40%, can keep it closed for a number of years during the development phase, and can temporarily stop hunting as a management tool if wildlife populations drop to non-sustainable levels, for special research projects, etc.
Furthermore, sometimes several smaller unattached tracts will be combined to form one "refuge." In this case, only 40% of the total acreage in this group of tracts is opened to hunting. Thus, some individual tracts can be off limits in perpetuity.
Personally, I have met hundreds of refuge managers/biologists over the years, and I have never met one who viewed hunting as a negative thing. In fact, they have all viewed hunting...at least...as a very helpful management tool. For example, it is typically considered the BEST way to maintain proper buck/doe ratios in deer populations.
Furthermore, sometimes several smaller unattached tracts will be combined to form one "refuge." In this case, only 40% of the total acreage in this group of tracts is opened to hunting. Thus, some individual tracts can be off limits in perpetuity.
Personally, I have met hundreds of refuge managers/biologists over the years, and I have never met one who viewed hunting as a negative thing. In fact, they have all viewed hunting...at least...as a very helpful management tool. For example, it is typically considered the BEST way to maintain proper buck/doe ratios in deer populations.
If you combine the 2nd and 3rd option would make sense. When they apply, send $$ with the app, nonrefundable. Not alot, just a little. I think hunters would support it.
Also, This way when all the PETA lovers are trying to fill up the draw, they are also helping out the birds and the program. It is also draining their pocket books so they would have to limit their play.
JMHO
Also, This way when all the PETA lovers are trying to fill up the draw, they are also helping out the birds and the program. It is also draining their pocket books so they would have to limit their play.
JMHO
DmDuck
Elite Refuge Member
Geez do you have to spell everything out to some of you rednecks ( i'm one too btw) , buck to doe ratio and stuff like that .
This being a duck hunting site u'd think this question was self explanitory .
Yes AQ/Silvermallard , we can hunt the lil fuzzy bunnies and Deer , and quail and turkey on our refuge too . I'm specifically asking about waterfowl hunting , this being a Waterfowlers site and all .
I'm sure some of those southern boys would love to see it , I'm thinkin a special permit or bid hunt would help with the budget shortfall also .
This being a duck hunting site u'd think this question was self explanitory .
Yes AQ/Silvermallard , we can hunt the lil fuzzy bunnies and Deer , and quail and turkey on our refuge too . I'm specifically asking about waterfowl hunting , this being a Waterfowlers site and all .
I'm sure some of those southern boys would love to see it , I'm thinkin a special permit or bid hunt would help with the budget shortfall also .
silvermallard
Elite Refuge Member
Jim,
Let me try to be more clear in my commentary...
IF and WHEN the biologist in charge of a given NWR believes based on the studies and surveys he's conducting virtually constantly on the property that there is a waterfowl population in the region which does not need 100% of a given refuge for rest area, he is bound by law to open it to public hunting...and the funds are already there to support it. Conversely, if he believes that allowing waterfowl hunting would create a detrimental impact to the resource, he is bound by law to NOT open it to public hunting. The first purpose and goal of the NWR system, which is funded in no small part by federal duck stamp dollars, is to provide the essential rest and feeding areas to the waterfowl population in the area needed to keep a healthy population that can sustain a 15% harvest ratio.
Furthermore, if a given area was purchased and designed for the preservation of a specific species, such as antelope, and the biologists are convinced that opening the area to waterfowl hunting would negatively impact the antelope, then he will...and should...prevent waterfowl hunting on the area. Many folks do not realize the impact on wildlife that occurs when you simply increase foot and/or vehicle traffic through a given tract of land. I know of places where hunting was terrific until a bridge or a highway was built which sends traffic (not even heavy urban/suburban traffic) through the middle of it, and there has been a SHARP decline in wildlife populations within 2 years. Even more significant to many hunters, the hunter success ratio drops DRAMATICALLY virtually overnight.
All of these things are taken into consideration, and the wise outdoorsman knows there is FAR MORE to it than simply, "Hey, bubba! Look! There's a bunch of ducks over yonder. Let's go blast 'em."
There is certainly nothing wrong with sportsmen keeping the pressure on the land managers and biologists...continuing to make them convince us that their reasons for denying access are sound. But we also need to realize that there are VERY COMPELLING reasons which are in our own best interest for the bulk of their decision-making.
Let me try to be more clear in my commentary...
IF and WHEN the biologist in charge of a given NWR believes based on the studies and surveys he's conducting virtually constantly on the property that there is a waterfowl population in the region which does not need 100% of a given refuge for rest area, he is bound by law to open it to public hunting...and the funds are already there to support it. Conversely, if he believes that allowing waterfowl hunting would create a detrimental impact to the resource, he is bound by law to NOT open it to public hunting. The first purpose and goal of the NWR system, which is funded in no small part by federal duck stamp dollars, is to provide the essential rest and feeding areas to the waterfowl population in the area needed to keep a healthy population that can sustain a 15% harvest ratio.
Furthermore, if a given area was purchased and designed for the preservation of a specific species, such as antelope, and the biologists are convinced that opening the area to waterfowl hunting would negatively impact the antelope, then he will...and should...prevent waterfowl hunting on the area. Many folks do not realize the impact on wildlife that occurs when you simply increase foot and/or vehicle traffic through a given tract of land. I know of places where hunting was terrific until a bridge or a highway was built which sends traffic (not even heavy urban/suburban traffic) through the middle of it, and there has been a SHARP decline in wildlife populations within 2 years. Even more significant to many hunters, the hunter success ratio drops DRAMATICALLY virtually overnight.
All of these things are taken into consideration, and the wise outdoorsman knows there is FAR MORE to it than simply, "Hey, bubba! Look! There's a bunch of ducks over yonder. Let's go blast 'em."
There is certainly nothing wrong with sportsmen keeping the pressure on the land managers and biologists...continuing to make them convince us that their reasons for denying access are sound. But we also need to realize that there are VERY COMPELLING reasons which are in our own best interest for the bulk of their decision-making.
