# Leg tags among 'a fistful of bills'



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Leg tags among 'a fistful of bills'*

*Bismarck Tribune*

By RICHARD HINTON

Restrictions on baiting for big game, a reduction of gratis big game licenses and a requirement for nonresident waterfowl hunters to use leg tags are among high-profile outdoors issues to be debated when the 60th Legislative Assembly convenes next month.

Those likely bills will be in addition to a bill to ban new big game farms in North Dakota.

The leg tag requirement is one of "a fistful of bills" from Rep. Todd Porter, R-Mandan, the new chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

He's also behind a proposal that would encourage youth hunting in North Dakota.

Rep. Duane DeKrey, R-Pettibone, put in the proposal on restricting baiting for big game, which involves regularly putting out feed to attract deer or other big game animals. Such a restriction was discussed in committee during the last session.

The North Dakota Game and Fish Department would write the rules, DeKrey said.

"It would be better if we talked it over and gave Game and Fish a sense of where we wanted to go," he said.

There were two or three individuals opposed to baiting restrictions during the committee hearings, DeKrey said.

"But I think in some instances, it's really not hunting. Let's keep hunting hunting and not just shooting," he added.

"The danger to public wildlife is that baiting concentrates them, dramatically increasing the opportunity for many disease transfers by physical, waste and fluid contacts," said Dick Monson, a Barnes County sportsman who often visits the Legislature.

The leg tag measure is intended to make sure "our possession limits are being complied with," Porter said. "In past years, there have been a number of (over-limit) cases tried and prosecuted. There have been some real egregious acts in possession limits."

The requirement would be similar to what Canada is doing now, and "at one time, North Dakota did have a banding requirement," Porter added.

Kyle Blanchfield, president of the Professional Guides and Outfitters Association, declined to comment until "I've read it. We oppose any more unnecessary restrictions on nonresidents."

Under the concept, nonresident hunters still would buy a license online and then pick up their tags at sporting good stores when they arrive in the state, Porter said.

"If a person brings all their shells and everything else, it's a way to get them back in local retail," Porter explained.

The measure is not intended "in any way, shape or form to take away (nonresidents') ability to hunt, but to stay within the guidelines, which are federal regulations," Porter added.

Landowners would need a minimum of 640 acres to obtain a gratis big game license, under another proposal. The current minimum is 160.

"Originally, approximately 1,000 landowners applied for that free license, and deer were abundant,"said Monson. "Now the number of applications for gratis has swelled to over 14,000 licenses, and deer numbers are falling, dramatically reducing the opportunity for a buck license in the general drawing."

The bill to ban big-game farms in North Dakota would affect only new operations. It also would bar someone from passing on a license to own an elk or deer farm.

The proposal, from Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, also would bar landowners from bringing in hunters to shoot elk or deer inside a fenced area.

Opponents say the legislation infringes on property rights.

"The public-at-large accepts fair chase hunting traditions but does not condone killing so-called trophies in a cage or escape-proof enclosure," said Monson. "Ethical fair chase is the fundamental concept behind sport hunting and is the basis for current hunting laws."

If other controversial bills on outdoors issues, such as a limit on nonresident waterfowl hunters or legalizing telescopic sights for muzzleloader season, are coming this session, they so far are flying under the radar.

"The last couple of sessions, there has been a no-trespass bill, but I haven't heard specifically of one coming forward," said Shawn McKenna, executive director of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation.

"I don't know of any other big ones," said Porter.

Neither has Sen. Stan Lyson, R-Williston, chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee. "I haven't heard a lot of anything on outdoors stuff," he said.

Neither has Blanchfield.

"I'm sure there might be some interesting legislation on the horizon, but there's nothing on paper yet to make my heart skip a beat," he said.

Legislators Blanchfield has talked to say they will have their hands full on issues other than outdoors this session. "It will be a busy session. We will try not to bother them with any unnecessary pieces of legislation," he added.

Porter's young hunters initiatives would create a new position of youth coordinator for NDGFD. The measure also would include local grants to communities for shooting ranges and promotion of youth shooting.

An additional Private Lands Open to Sportsmen program also is in the mix.

Some PLOTS acreage within 30 miles of urban areas would be set aside for youths to hunt.

"A youth has to be present, and both a youth and an adult can hunt it," Porter explained.

The object of the youth initiative is to stop the outflow of young hunters.

"I want to make it easy for hunting, not a big hassle to get out and hunt. I want to encourage young people to stay and encourage youth to get involved in hunting," Porter said.

Porter also is pitching a lower legal age to hunt big game. Current law says young hunters must be 14 to hunt big game. As drafted, the bill would lower the age to 12 and eliminate the fee for youth deer licenses.

The session also will see some housekeeping bills, changes to language in bills and possible increases in fees, said Paul Schadewald, NDGFD chief of administrative services.

What could come out of those include revising procedures to handling suspensions for game and fish violations; changing the North Dakota bighorn auction tag to a raffle tag, higher fees for buck tags than doe tags, and an antelope raffle as part of a youth hunter recruitment effort.

"Before the session, about two thirds (of the outdoors-related bills) come in. Others pop up that you never hear about," said Schadewald.

(Reach outdoor writer Richard Hinton at 250-8256 or [email protected];bismarcktribune.com.)


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

Same old rhetoric from Kyle. Thanks for the post Bob.

Kyle B

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/57-200 ... 92302.html

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles ... /top01.txt

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:hJ1 ... y/57-2001/
interim-info/minutes/jub080602.html+kyle+Blanchfield+ducks&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob,

With the leg tags bill.....Is the NR still limited to the number of days they can hunt? (two 7 day or one 14 day)



> The requirement would be similar to what Canada is doing now,


Where in Canada do they make the NR hunter use leg tags? (I am just curious)


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

They have leg tags for grouse and partridge in Saskatchewan.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I can't imagne anyone would have a problem with leg tags....you get to shoot a limit and it will only hurt the guys that are breaking the law right now. I would assume that there will be more than enough tags given to each hunter so they cvan eat a limit or two while here and still take the two day limit home after the trip. Why would any outfitter not want leg tags? Are they not using the resource? Wouldn't they want to protect it like everyone else?

The tags, IMO, will only help to curb the gifting, wasting, and otherwise unethical hunter that just wants to shoot without regard to the resource.


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

leg tags sound good to me too, why complain, you still get to shoot the same number of birds???


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Also with the leg tags......does the amount go towards early goose?

I agree with leg tags just have some questions is all.

Anyone know if the bill gets passed do the NR's still have the 14 day lisc?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Field Hunter said:


> I can't imagne anyone would have a problem with leg tags....you get to shoot a limit and it will only hurt the guys that are breaking the law right now. I would assume that there will be more than enough tags given to each hunter so they cvan eat a limit or two while here and still take the two day limit home after the trip. Why would any outfitter not want leg tags? Are they not using the resource? Wouldn't they want to protect it like everyone else?
> 
> The tags, IMO, will only help to curb the gifting, wasting, and otherwise unethical hunter that just wants to shoot without regard to the resource.


What is wrong with Kyles comment that he will decide after he has read the bill??????? Guess what I'm an outfitter and feel the same way. I have asked the almighty godfather of this bill to send me a copy but he declines. Personally I really want to read this before making a decision unlike the sheep here.


----------



## Slider_01 (Sep 12, 2002)

If they implement leg bands for NR, what sort of arrangements are made if the NR is consuming them while hunting? I know when I come to your great state to hunt for a week, at least 4 of my meals are duck/goose concoctions. If I am only granted a possession limit of leg bands and I am eating them after banding them, do I get to re-use them? Just so everyone knows, I have not brought a single bird home with me over the last three years, as we have eaten them all while there.

I think some sort of tagging program would be good, it just seems as though it is not as clear cut as "give the NR his/her 12 bands" (or whatever the possession limit of ducks is) and we are done with it.

Would this also be used for upland birds? Again, the same argument of birds consumed would come into play.

Do not misconstrue my comments as simply an NR wanting to kill more birds, because that is not the case. I am simply asking questions that may/may not be answerable at this time surrounding the number of bands provided.

Slider_01


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Why only NRs?

Should apply to both residents and non-residents.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

PSDC,
The nr bird hunting population has increased 4-5 fold in the last 15 vyears. The resident bird hunting population has stayed the same or decreased slightly over the same time frame. That's your answer!
Jim


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Jim,

Don't agree with your response. This looks like another attempt to 
reduce the license sales. I would have no problem with a cap, but
telling a NR they can only harvest "x" amount of migratory birds 
during their 7 day period seems hypocritical. Want the money 
from license sales, but limiting their hunting opportunites by 
the tag system. If an NR pays for a 7 day hunt and only allow tags
for 3 days, whats the point of two 7 day periods?


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Make the leg tag for possession limit. Eat the rest. Not tagged and in the freezer. There's the fine. Not tagged in the back of the truck after the hunt, should be allowable, till you get back and clean them. Game and fish can tell if a bird has recently been shot or if it's a day old!



> This looks like another attempt to
> reduce the license sales.


 Actually it looks like a good way to prevent waste or over harvesting ( I am not saying that all NR overharvest, it just a fact that some do while they are here-not all-just some)! 
PSDC if that is the way you are thinking then all states should follow suit !


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Maverick,

I don't see a need for a NR tag system, seems like a waste of money
if the system still allows an NR to harvest and consume/gift their limit
everyday for a 7 day period.

What is basis behind the tag system? I would rather see the cost
of the tag system be spent in enforcement and more game wardens.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> What is basis behind the tag system? I would rather see the cost
> of the tag system be spent in enforcement and more game wardens.


Well I agree with you 100% there!!


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

PSDC,

The basis for the leg tag system is to discourage the "I have to get the limit every day" mentality that some nr's have when they come here hunting. This attitude has resulted in comments on this web site about gifting or otherwise getting rid of a daily bag of birds just to go shoot another limit. Needless to say, that attitude leaves a bad taste in many peoples mouths.

The leg tag system allows nr's to kill a reasonable amount of gamebirds during their hunting time in ND while reducing the excessive pressure that some nr gamehogs are putting on the resource.

Jim


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> What is basis behind the tag system? I would rather see the cost
> of the tag system be spent in enforcement and more game wardens.


The basis for the bill is enforcement. If you are stopped at or you are part of a community game check and you have not tagged your birds you will be in violation. It will also aid in enforcement when warden encounters a shooting operation and the shooting operations that have the guides running birds back to the lodge freezer so clients can keep shooting. (it happens more often than you think) If it is a community freezer as most hunting lodges are, the birds must be tagged before being placed in the freezer. That is current law regardless of residency.

I have not read the final version of the bill but I am sure provisions will be made to allow for a bag limit plus some birds to eat/gift while you are in-state. My guess is that the 7 and 14 day licenses will remain with tags allocated per 7 day periods.

Cost of the tag system was not determined but there was no indication that NR's would have to foot the bill. some discussion was to raise resident waterfowl license fees to pay for the system.

I will post the bill as soon as it is entered. The original bill has evolved since its inception.

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> It will also aid in enforcement when warden encounters a shooting operation and the shooting operations that have the guides running birds back to the lodge freezer so clients can keep shooting. (it happens more often than you think) If it is a community freezer as most hunting lodges are, the birds must be tagged before being placed in the freezer. That is current law regardless of residency.


Come on Bob, poor,poor reason for a bill. "IF" guides are doing this as you say, do you think leg tags will stop them? Lets blame the guides it will have a better chance at passing. Has to be more to this I can't wait to read it!!!


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Bob,

If the limit for ducks is 10 and geese 6. Does that mean 
a NR will get 16 tags? Can the tags be re-used if the birds
are consumed or gifted? Obvious without any knowledge
of the bill, I would believe the above would be the worst
scenerio for NRs, especially if the tags cannot be re-used.

Thanks


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

ducks only, number of tags equal to possesion limit, 7/14 stays in place, system funded by creation of a $5 _*resident*_ duck stamp (it's time to get a more-accurate count of R hunters anyway).


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Dan,

Could the tags be re-used, if some of the possession limit 
has been consumed? Why not a NR ND duck stamp?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Come on g/o it was an example not a condemnation.

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bob Kellam said:


> Come on g/o it was an example not a condemnation.
> 
> Bob


Bob I'm sure it was only an example. The reason I question this is do you think guys that break the law, guides or the resident by double dipping are going to let leg tags scare them. "IF" residents do not have to abide by this no tags for us how is this going to stop a guide by bringing limits back as you say. Nothing make sense here without reading the bill there has to be something else in it. Maybe Don will share it with us.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Then if it is ducks only.....will early goose still count against your 7/14 days? Because it does now. Or Would the 7/14 days only be used for ducks?

Because I am in favor of leg tags if you don't have to use the 7/14 days period. This way you can give tne NR X duck tags, X goose tags and then X snow goose tags. Let use them up through out the season (staying with in possession limits of course.) Because that way a NR can take a week and hunt early goose and then take a week to hit the mallards, then take a week and come back to finish the rest of the tags....

- This would mean less pressure by spreading out the days NR hunters are allowed in the feild. (not trying to burn all tags with in 14 days) This will give the NR maybe the idea of trying different times to hunt than the typical First two weeks in OCT.
- Return visits (good for local economies)

This is just an idea. Because if people still have the 7/14 they are going to try to use all of the tags in that time period. Because if the NR has two 7 day periods they will try to make sure that the birds are around, (Peek Migration or Oct 7-21). If they have the whole season, they might try late season or other times of the year instead of the "Peek Migration".


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

PSDC said:


> Bob,
> 
> If the limit for ducks is 10 and geese 6. Does that mean
> a NR will get 16 tags? Can the tags be re-used if the birds
> ...


Tags could not be re-used.In the 60's and early 70's we recieved a book with either 3 or 4 days limit of tags.I believe it was 3 days.When they were used up....you hunted something else.This would allow you to eat of gift some birds.I believe in Sask we get 3 days limit of Sharptail and Hun tags.

We had to tag them at the pickup,just like we do deer now.You would not be allowed to wait until you cleaned them.

This would make enforcement much easier and like the case in Ashley this fall,make it easy to tell what belonged to who.

I wouldn't think it would not include upland since you can keep buying more licenses.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Sorry don't mean to hijack...
but:

Ken....

What was the incident at Ashley? I don't think I heard of it.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Sorry.....wrong town.It was Napoleon.....

http://nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=30728


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Leg tags could have a couple of effects on NR hunters.

Lower hunting pressure per hunter since each NR only has a certain legal number of birds they can harvest. NR would either be in the field less time per day or less total days - if they are successful

Reduce the number of NRs visiting NoDak. There is a percentage of NRs that visit NoDak that need to limit day in and day out. These people will move on to another state or Canada to fill that need.

Both of these effects could lower NR pressure on the ducks.

G/Os and leg bands
G/Os service many newbies and shooters that often are ignorant of *all* the rules and regs. These shooters do not have to worry, the G/O will take care of this for them.

That said, I can see why the G/Os would not support this law. It is simply more work for them. :wink:

It is just another opportunity for their operation to get tagged with a violation. There will be situations where the G/O will have to tell a paying customer they are done shooting for the day, trip, week.... 

Residents should not be burdened with leg tags, but if anyone feels that a resident or G/O operation is shooting and hoarding ducks way above the possession limit, call the Federal Warden and have him stopped by and do a little freezer search.


----------



## Centerfire (Jan 13, 2006)

My comment is to beware of over regulating things - I hate to see something simple made complex. Lets face it if someone is going to cheat on limits they will find a way to do it regardless of what regulations are put in place. All these new regulations will make things more difficult to interpret and enforce in my opinion.

Example: The state of Virginia has hunting regulations that vary from county to county going down to what hours and days you can hunt. So if you hunt in more than one county you may be legal in one but in violation in the next even though birds were taken legally in the other - Try enforcing and tracking that one.

So say if residents and non-residents hunt together and only NR's are required to band - how would a Warden know if untagged birds were the resident hunters or birds the NR failed to tag.

Keep the laws simple


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

HOW COMPLICATED CAN IT BE?

You shoot a duck and you put a tag on it. Pretty easy. Even the resident ND hunter can figure out how to use his deer tag every year.

Why would the G/Os oppose it? Only because it will limit the number of days that a client can be afield and shooting a limit of ducks. Maye they could be doing something different like upland, predator or the like after all tags are filled.

Some of you are right in that is may stop a few hunters from traveling to ND but do we really want the guys that are here to shoot what ever happens to fly by or the ones that actually want to hunt and not just shoot.


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

sounds like another well thought out bill, by some so called "smart people" that have no clue and [email protected]$$ to just say "we don't want NR's here at all, we want it all to ourselves". It designed to sell people that its gonna catch violators but it in essence its a "your not welcome here" Bill. If they give tags for possesion limit, thats 2 days of hunting, but you will sell them a license for 7/14 days.

Who does this hurt the most freelancers and people who come from great distances to hunt more than a weekend. Who is it that most here complain about? MN does this really effect them, nope its still easy to come out for a couple days and kill their limits and drive 5 hours home. I would venture to guess most NR that come from long distance are looking for quality hunts, not road hunting and jump shooting to kill birds. It also hurts many freelancers thatdrive to your state and consume their game each night as they hunt.

How does this address the problem of G/O, their rich cleints will still fly in for the weekend and have the guide take care of the tags and leave when they are filled.

I seriously really don't understand the logic of some. You rant and rave we like freelancers, our big problem is G/O and leasing of land yet introduce hokie bills trying to circumvent the root problem.


----------



## shae1986 (Sep 28, 2006)

As a NR i am greatly in favor of this law passing. It will HOPEFULLY cut done on people that shoot birds and give them away and then go out to shoot more. Now im not saying that gifting is bad when done correctly and legally, its actually a great way to keep your hunting privlidges, but its not always done that way. This is something i will have to watch, i also believe that many other states could follow with this law!!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Hunters worry about bill requiring harvest tags*

Their mutual love of hunting ducks has brought them to North Dakota every fall for about 15 years.

Shannon Tompkins, an outdoor writer for the Houston Chronicle, flies into Bismarck, and his hunting partner, Michael Furtman, an outdoor photographer from Duluth, Minn., and his black Labrador retriever, Wigeon, pick him up at the airport.

The possibility of a worsening drought doesn't concern either avid duck hunter too much.

"With us, it's not really about killing ducks any more. We got that out of our systems. It's just a week for us to relax, hunt, talk and spend time in a wonderful place. We both just enjoy the scenery and the opportunity to hunt, and the people and the wildlife," Tompkins wrote in an e-mail. "We've hunted dry years and wet years. We have seen a lot of changes. Certainly didn't seem to be as many hunters around us this past trip as some before."

This year's hunt was not nearly as productive as most in the past, Tompkins added.

"I'm not sure if it was because there were fewer birds or that we, like a lot of old guys, have just fallen into a pattern of hunting a lot of the same spots we hunted in past seasons. We work hard. But we don't work as hard as we used to. Like I said, it's the experience, not the number of birds we take, that draws us to North Dakota."

Tompkins and Furtman stay in a Medina motel for their week of hunting North Dakota, and they hunt around that area.

While dry conditions concern Furtman a bit more than Tompkins, both hunters are more worried about HB1240, which would require nonresident duck hunters to receive harvest tags, among other things.

Being limited to 10 leg bands, or whatever possession limit is, "would be a deal breaker," Furtman wrote in an e-mail. "We eat ducks while there, and we also ship birds home (perfectly legal to "gift" a limit of ducks to your wife), so if the tagging means 10 birds and you're done, I'd certainly give up (reluctantly) hunting in NoDak."

Tompkins, too, would hunt elsewhere.

"If we were lucky, we'd have our 10 ducks in two days. Even if it was slow hunting, I doubt it would take us more than three or four days to kill a possession limit," he wrote.

"There's no way I could justify the expense and time to come up there for three or four days, at best. My trips up there cost me about $1,500. I've been wanting to go to Maine or Nova Scotia and hunt eiders and black ducks. If North Dakota goes to the possession limit tags for nonresidents, Yankees or Canucks will get my money."

"There has been talk of amendments already to increase the number of stamps," said one of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Todd Porter, R-Mandan, who is the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which hears legislation on hunting and fishing bills.

All of Canada currently has possession stamps, he added.

(Reach outdoor writer *Richard Hinton *at 250-8256 or [email protected];bismarcktribune.com.)



> "With us, it's not really about killing ducks any more. We got that out of our systems.





> Being limited to 10 leg bands, or whatever possession limit is, "would be a deal breaker," Furtman wrote in an e-mail. "We eat ducks while there, and we also ship birds home (perfectly legal to "gift" a limit of ducks to your wife), so if the tagging means 10 birds and you're done, I'd certainly give up (reluctantly) hunting in NoDak."


????


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Talk about contradicting statements! :eyeroll:


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Nice


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> There has been talk of amendments already to increase the number of stamps," said one of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Todd Porter, R-Mandan, who is the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which hears legislation on hunting and fishing bills.
> 
> All of Canada currently has possession stamps, he added.


 not true!!!! Sask. has leg band for upland only, Manitoba basically same as ours. Porter must be grasping for straws.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Those 2 guys are talking out of both sides of their mounth's.....

How can they say....."With us, it's not really about killing ducks any more.We both just enjoy the scenery and the opportunity to hunt."

Then say...... Being limited to 10 leg bands, or whatever possession limit is, "would be a deal breaker,"

They have no credibility. :eyeroll:


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Ken,

That struck me too. They really do care more about the bag than the experience.

M.


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

I would be more supportive of higher penalties for "gross over-limit" violations. People that intentionaly and blatantly go over limit should be hit very hard with fines.

If someone is caught with something like double the daily limit (fish, ducks, whatever), then lay the whip to them. The fines could be then ear-marked for increased Game and Fish enforcement. This way violators, no matter what their resident status, would be under greater scrutiny.

But if leg tags are found to reduce over limit violations, then by all means, implement them.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

One of the only fears I have now that I have seen the purposed bill about leg tags is that I can see NR using R to shoot more ducks.

Example with the current bill introduced:
Two NR's hunt with two R The group shoots 15 birds. The R will take with them 10 birds. Then in the after noon hunt. They shoot 15 more and the R takes home again 10....Double dipping. *I know this is illegal* but it could happen more often when you limit NR to 10 total birds per 7 day hunt.

If you give the NR more tags with no time restriction it could be better situation for all.

Example:
A leg tag restriction of something like 30 tags total and the NR can use them all year. But they can never go over the possession limit. So they can shoot 5....eat them and only have 25 left. Shoot another 5 and eat them....etc. This way they can hunt six days if they hunt and eat 20 birds all those days. If they don't eat the birds or gift them (I hate to say gift) then the NR can possess those 10 birds and will have 20 unused tags left over.

Then it will give flexibility to the NR. They will beable to hunt 4 days....shoot 15 birds and eating 5....come back maybe later on in the year (migration) and then shoot the rest of the tags.

One thing with the only being able to harvest 10 in a 7 day period you will find more people hunting on weekends and taking shorter trips. These people will focus on the first two weeks of the season.

Again I think if you have leg tags you should have X amount then have no time periods. But again this is just an idea.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Do deer tags keep deer hunters more honest? Sort of but there are still those who don't tag, or put on their wife's tag or someone else's tag on their animal or buy tags for those that don't ever intend to hunt. So tags do help a little but are they a cure all. Nope.


----------

