The Outdoor Community banner

Deer Entitlement

4880 Views 41 Replies 27 Participants Last post by  jimbridger
Just two easy questions...
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Purchasing a license (with appropriate tags) provides me the legal authority to pursue whatever it is that is in season at that time. Nothing more and nothing less. I answered No and No.
I don't quite get the first question! A hunting license is just that....a license entitling you the privilege to take a deer. Do you mean guaranteeing you a deer?
That first question really needs reworded! I keep going back and rereading it and it can really be taken either way.

Guaranteeing me a deer? NO
Giving me a chance to take a deer? YES
^ yes. i didn't vote yet. i do believe i know how to hunt good enough to get deer so all i need is a license to kill them.

now, if you don't know how to hunt, and don;t get deer consistently, the answers will be different.
Guaranteed a deer??? Some of the nimrods I have encountered hunting over the years would be hard pressed to find steaks in a supermarket, let alone a live deer.
I don't get it???? When you buy a general hunting license it entitles you to one antlered deer for that year. Why would anyone say "NO" to that question?

Weather you get one or not is mostly up to the individual.
Ok my question is why in the [censored] are you buying a hunting lic. if your intent is not to harvest game? Yes I feel entitled to take a deer, however it is up to me to put in the time to be in the right place to harvest. But I buy a lic to hunt not take pictures.
I voted yes to the first question based on my interpritation of the question. I have the right to harvest a legal deer if I decide to.
A license does not entitle you to kill a deer, it entitles you to attempt to kill a deer. It is a license to hunt, not a guarantee or a written promise you will get anything other than the right to try to take something. It is a hunting license, not a getting license. If people do not understand that, it becomes evident where the entitlement attitudes come from.
I said yes to the first and no to the second. Without a licence I would not be entitled to take a deer so just purchasing the licence changes that. The second one is simple it don't take a licence to see deer so the licence don't change anything. Waugh!
Bottom line for this thread is that it shows the % of people who live in the real world and those that live in Lala land.

Very interesting!
A license gives one the privilege to hunt and pay for land, law enforcement, management etc.

However, it is the license carrying hunter's challenge to do well at the hunting sport of their choice.

The one thing I have learned is the more I put into it the more I get out of it....enjoyment and a higher degree of success....But no one owes me success just because a paid money for a license. Doesn't work that way with the lottery tickets either.
Regarding the first question: I don't 'feel' that buying a license entitles me to take a deer, but I know that it gives me the right to hunt for and take a buck.

Regarding the second question: Heck no.
As worded, that is a trick question with no good answer. So I will not vote.

When I buy a license, I expect it to pay for the best management our money can buy.

That means addressing issues as needed and having appropriate priorities, not extreme type goals and ignoring hunters satisfaction.

I pay to have responsible management.

I don't see anything even close in what we are getting.
I know people that, if they dont get a deer, they feel the game commission ripped them off for the cost of the license.
No, it is not a trick, words mean things and a license does not grant an entitlement to kill a deer, it grants a privilege to attempt to kill and possess a deer, or any other legal game or furbearer. The word entitled has a specific meaning, the fact that you feel entitled doesn't make you entitled. It also does not entitle you to be satisfied or agree with the way wildlife is managed and from reading some of the posts on here, that is a very good thing because some people can't manage their bank account let alone a statewide wildlife population. Your opinion on what is responsible management is not necessarily the same as the next guys so just whose opinion should the agency go by? The answer is their opinion, that is what they get paid for, not managing by consensus or I should say mismanagement by consensus.
/蓻n藞ta瑟t鈥塴/ Show Spelled [en-tahyt-l] Show IPA
verb (used with object), en路ti路tled, en路ti路tling.
to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim: His executive position entitled him to certain courtesies rarely accorded others.
to call by a particular title or name: What was the book entitled?
to designate (a person) by an honorary title.

1 The hunting licence entitled him to shoot a deer and this right is rarely accorded to unlicensed people.

2 The license entitled him to be called a hunter.

3 The license designated him as a hunter.

JohnS, if they manage responsibly, that means they manage for the values of society, and that includes us john. The management tool and the bill payer. Our voice should carry weight. And I do not mean to the extreme where mismanagement goes to the other extreme. And I really do not believe that is what most of the dissenters really want anyway.

But taking into account our values doesn't mean just those of a vocal minority who love birds more than they probably should and for the dcnr state timber fund and those few are the ones that pretty much dictated this program to us from day one.

See evelands page for those supporting documented facts.
Evelands documants could't support a cotton ball, he has been discredited over and over again and still the we want more crowd cling to his rubbish. All the more reason for the PGC not to listen to them, they wouldn't know good management if they fell face first in it. The fact that your beliefs are bolstered by an essentially failed envious nobody trying to be revelant says volumes.
1 - 20 of 42 Posts