As I am currently on an 8 hour time difference with WI, this thread has served as entertainment for me while I lose the jet lag. Here in S Africa there are very strong anti-poaching efforts underway, yet they have not considered penalizing the legal hunter. There are no shooting hours or shooting times. Hunters are looked upon as the guardians of wildlife and laws are made to hinder poachers, not legal hunters.
Cant believe I'm saying but thanks RC for clearing it up.
This question was originally put on the list of 12 DNR questions for the Conservation Congress spring hearing. It has been reported that the idea for the question originally came from one of the NRB members, but it was a DNR question, not an NRB one. Questions 13 and 14 were NRB questions.
The question was not of the public, it was of the WCC.
The recommendations for all of the questions on the questionnaire are made at the annual convention, not from the spring hearing votes. As a general rule the delegates vote along with the vote from the spring hearing, but in unusual circumstances, they can vote differently as was done on this question. This is rare and I have not found the last time it was done, but it has not been done in years. This type of ability is pretty common just like a judge can throw out a jury verdict if circumstances warrant.
After the annual convention, the recommendations are reported to the NRB. This year the report was done at their May meeting and you can find it on the agenda for the meeting, download the recommendations, as well as see it on the webcast if you go the NRB page on the DNR website.
No action has been taken on this question since, and anyone who says it will (or has) move(d) forward or not is merely making a personal supposition with no basis. If anything does happen with this issue, it will have several steps to go through involving the DNR, NRB, Legislature, the Secretary, and the Governor.
This topic has been beaten to death and in my opinion there isn't much reason to keep bashing each other over it. Obviously some people have strong opinions one way or another and they aren't likely to change, and there isn't anything wrong with that. If the issue goes anywhere, anyone who wishes to voice their opinion will have an opportunity to, but an internet forum isn't going to mean anything to those making decisions.
Well the apple didn't fall very far from the tree.
