So what is your area? had 1 cked in Claiborne county before it was found in WTn.I also seen them taking glands out of a deer in Anderson county at a deer processor and pretty sure it was before then also
TWRA meeting today
- Thread starter Flintlocksforme
- Start date
Yes, they were. They were doing CWD surveillance probably as early as 2010 in areas across the state before it ever showed up anywhere in the state.
kentuckylakebuck1
Well-Known Member
Henry co
You are correct, first one i had checked was in 2012
bowhunterfanatic
Well-Known Member
That's all it takes to find an outbreak. No reason to waste a bunch of money testing for something that isn't there.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
Very true.
What's more, there was no evidence of CWD in any adjoining states to TN.
So TWRA was actually ahead of the curve on CWD testing in the Southeast.
Once any evidence suggests greater odds of CWD being present,
testing is increased (as it was).
Wildcat#32
Well-Known Member
exactly what does "2-3 hours tied up" have anything to do with this?? its his JOB!!! im sorry but kindergarten was a long time ago for me!!! If all you can do is call me names iv lost all respect for you!!!! Again we the people/hunters are paying his salary!!!!!
Folks think TWRA write tickets and get a boat load of $$ , scn was trying to point out that the $ they receive is very little of what's collected, he never stated it wasn't worth the officers time to write the ticket. Folks want to get all bent out of shape for no good reason. They have a job to do and folks make it harder, everybody think they are a lawyer and know the law lol.
Alot of people think they can do the TWRA's job better than them.
Maybe so but a lot of folks just want to hold them and the commission's feet to the fire when it comes to the wildlife and public lands they are entrusted to steward. Nothing against the present commissioners but the body in the past has made decisions out of purely political motivations and TWRA's budget comes mainly from license sales as opposed to other states with income taxes. So I'm fairly convinced this is why they take such a liberal approach when it comes to seasons and limits compared to other states. I'm not saying the system is broken and needs to be replaced. And I'm not saying I don't appreciate a lot of things they have done. For instance, I'm all for the 2 buck limit statewide. However, I can't understand why we're not gonna stick with a 2 tom limit statewide or why it's legal to kill 3 does a day on so much public ground. I wonder if the former has ANYTHING to do with the possibility of collecting more TWRA revenue from a hunter that has to hunt a different area of the state for his third Tom. As for the latter I have no idea and don't know of any other state that would send such a message outside of CWD zones.
Biggun4214
Well-Known Member
Most people wouldn't work the hours most TWRA officers work for the pay.
How would TWRA get more $ by making folks travel for another bird? I have had to head west for a lot of years in order to hunt more than 1 buck or to shoot a doe, they never charged me xtra to do so, that was my choice to spend gas $$
But I'm willing to bet most of us appreciate the hard work our local GW puts in. I know I sure do and it literally has nothing to do with any of my criticisms of the agency and the commission.
How many folks have different private turkey properties they can hunt across the state? If a man hunts his own farm he doesn't even need a license and if it's private property you don't need a WMA permit. I was just saying that if one has to travel for the third bird there's a good chance TWRA might get more revenue, but of course the main reason for the change is most likely all the folks complaining about loss of opportunity.
Almost all of the officers I have met in the field were great guys, and it has always been a decent experience. My problem is with the Wildlife Commission, the politics involved to get appointed there, and, at least for some members, their seeming lack of knowledge of what the state's sportsmen want. They seem to have little desire for balancing what the sportsmen want with the best interest of the wildlife, and tend to want to go in directions that benefit their own desires/wants instead. Not saying all of them do, but that is my take on a fair number of them.
BSK
Well-Known Member
No, because that isn't conclusively known.
BSK
Well-Known Member
I remember when it was done. It was FAR more than a handful. It was a full-fledged effort to find out if it existed.
And someone, that doesn't understand statistical analysis, will usually say "well they didn't test my deer".
I agree wholeheartedly with the three doe a day deal . Did it a few times but like you said it's just too much work . I was actually full filling an obligation to some people for deer. Then they got to where " you didn't clean it for me " ? Uhh no I just drove 200 miles !! It got to be a hassle as I don't know the HFH was implemented then or I just hadn't heard about it but I got over the numbers game.
Last edited:
