Florence Deer Tag Meeting

[Sparkleberry Ridge Runner]

My take on the meeting. Take it for what it is worth. Ruth does not do a very good job (in my opinion) of fully explaining the situation or answering questions while in front of a crowd. He is much better one on one, so if you want an explanation stay after and ask him. The meetings are to allow for public questions. They are also polling the attendees yet all the questions are loaded questions. There was no simple question asking to raise your hand if you support the new system and then raise your hand if you oppose it until Duck Tape asked. It was approximately 60% opposed 40% for. Ultimately the proposed tag system is about having larger antlers. Period.
Ruth repeatedly stated that this is what the majority of hunters want, yet the above vote showed otherwise.
Ruth also used a very old study to show that 0 deer from a 14,000 acre well managed plantation survived beyond 4 years old when they left the area. And he explained that young deer WILL leave. I believe this fits for when the study was done 20 years ago but I personally believe that the general attitude of the hunters has changed over the last 20 years to not shoot every buck they see.(personal opinion here)
When asked why a statewide plan when the state is so different Ruth stated that the 4 bucks and 4 does allowed will result in the following: areas that need to kill more deer will do so and areas that do not need to kill more deer will not. Honestly I have not been able to wrap my head around that one. When asked about this he said that areas that need more killed will because currently hunters in those areas are not shooting as many does as they should and they will start doing so when they run out of buck tags. Areas that do not need to have as many deer killed will have hunters that only use their buck tags.
The quota program will be based upon two things: If you are enrolled in the doe program the number of buck tags allotted will be approximately 60% of the number of does you had previously harvested (not the number of tags issued) He explained that if you were issued 100 doe tags and were only using 50 then you do not need as many buck tags until you start fulfilling the 100 doe tags. The other guideline for those properties not currently enrolled in the program will basically be 1 buck per 50 acres. This came from myself and two others talking with Ruth after the meeting.
There was some more but I will let the discussions start here.

[Silentweapon338]

One question.

Who was the guy passing out literature prior to the meeting "DJ" Ruth had to point out wasn't via DNR?

From Ruth's perspective:

[Sparkleberry Ridge Runner]

No idea who he was. I felt like Ruth did not like the fact that guy was passing out literature that contradicted the agenda.

[jevans]

No idea who he was. I felt like Ruth did not like the fact that guy was passing out literature that contradicted the agenda.

Man, shoot. We had you pegged for being him.

[jevans]

And I'll give you my very uneducated take on the meeting as well. Neither side presented any reasonable argument as to why or why not. I specifically heard Ruth say the tag system would not be put in place as a means to grow bigger bucks, or as a means to grow the population, but as a way to maintain the population. I'm sure this was the best answer he could give with both sides jumping down his throat. A few of the questions needed to be more clear on what exactly they meant, as some of them were repetitive and left very vague and open. Other than that there wasn't much more to it. Same old arguments on both sides of the fence.

[SC REBEL]

They have already decided to pass it. The meetings are just a formality and to make you think they value your opinion. Next year it will be the law.

[Bigtimber2]

You mean some clown was there handing out his own "literature?

[Duck Tape]

The vote was 60% for and 40% against the proposal, I counted. The count was who is against _______, who is abstaining. They never asked who was for the proposal. I forced that vote so all could see.

Otherwise, more questions about depredation permits and much antidotal evidence.


I wet one old, old man who was proud to say he had only killed one doe in his lifetime. Said that was how his Momma told him to hunt. Said they don't shoot does on his club.

[aquaman]

I have killed more than eight deer a year twice in my life. Not because I couldn't but because between me and friends I couldn't use that many. With that being said it will only take one representative to bring all of this to a halt. Yancey McGill is a prime example of stopping deer legislation.

[Silentweapon338]

You mean some clown was there handing out his own "literature?

Yes.

As you came in the door some guy was handing out a piece of paper he put together.

I'll also concur with Jevans. I never heard Ruth say this program was to grow bigger antlers. He went out of his way to say it was not for that reason. He did say this would be a way they could better keep track of the numbers harvested state wide.

He also had to explain to the guy who brought the literature that the tags were part of the "package" The man kept trying to make the case that a upstate man will be forced to buy 4 buck tags and he can only use 2. Mr. Ruth had to explain he also got 4 doe tags and the price dropped from 20-15$ for all of the tags now. The man was adamant the government was forcing him to buy tags he couldn't use. Again Mr. Ruth explained it was part of the package. I thought asking the man if he could drive from the upstate to Florence for a meeting he wasn't going to be able to drive to use his tags would have been more appropriate.

They did clear up, if I understood correctly, that if you had a life time license you did not have to purchase tags.

That conversation got hushed by one man standing up telling us some story about taking 2 senators fishing and they said bla bla bla. At that point another man accused this man of taking his property and if we had his money we could take them fishing. The accuser was at the door leading out to the restroom. I'll be honest I was a little hesitant to go to the restroom for a while he was really upset about this land deal, and he had the door way blocked.

They had a fair amount of DNR officers there they could not participate. When the questions for the poll were asked they were all asked in a manner that was a bit bizarre for a crowd with the sophistication level that was present. Most of the questions required you to raise you hand if you opposed a question. All the DNR officers could not participate. It crossed my mind that the questions were phrased this way to skew the numbers knowing their hands could not be raised. Let me be clear I'm for the tags, but even so if they did count their bodies as positive votes by not raising their hands and entered that into their numbers that is rather dirty pool. I asked the officers afterwards why they were there they said security if anyone got rowdy.

DT is correct he did put the question in a normal phrasing i.e. Do you support buck tags raise your hand for "yes" vote. It was about 60% for 40% against, but by the time he was able to put the vote out in a normal phrasing half the room was buzzing trying to figure out how or what the last question meant.

[Sparkleberry Ridge Runner]

Ruth said this was a means to maintain the population, yet he said as well as put it up on a slide, that despite no tagging system and despite a decline in harvest numbers SC IS STILL #1 IN THE SOUTHEAST WITH DEER HARVEST PER SQUARE MILE. To me, what this says is that the "we are the only state without a tagging system argument" is bogus.

[PBiz]

That's awesome, they know less and don't have near as much as a grip on this thing as I have thought..


Anybody contacting any politicians?

[Bigtimber2]

Yes.

[PBiz]

South Carolina politicians*

[Bigtimber2]

Yes.

[reezen44]

We need a tag system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PBiz]

So the population is down, but then we cant get more buck tags unless we kill more does?

Is that correct?

[Sparkleberry Ridge Runner]

So the population is down, but then we cant get more buck tags unless we kill more does?

Is that correct?

That is correct. After the meeting Ruth said this face to face to myself and another person. He also gave the following explanation: There are areas of the state in which the allotted doe tags are not being used. Williamsburg was our study area for this 6,600 tags issued but only 3,300 of them used. Due to this, these type areas will receive LESS buck tags in order to make the hunters harvest the number of does that need to be taken. He also, during his presentation, made a big point of pointing out that hunters are not doing their part by killing enough does.
If those who were there will think about the entire presentation, I think they will see that Ruth contradicted himself many times. This is why I stated earlier that he is NOT a good person to have this presented to a crowd. One on one talking civil he can explain things. Facing a crowd with some rough "hey Bo's" and he get flustered.

[Silentweapon338]

Update time.

The guy who was handing out the flyers turns out to be a "rent a rioter"

He will be at ever meeting.

He has been highered by a group opposed to the tagging system.

He doesn't even hunt nor does he farm.

He had to drive 2 hours to get back to were ever he was from.

I knew he was to well prepared and spoken to be a regular hunter with feelings either way about the situation!

I'm trying to get info on the group now!

Does anyone still have the paper he handed out?

[buckpro]

The quota program will be based upon two things: If you are enrolled in the doe program the number of buck tags allotted will be approximately 60% of the number of does you had previously harvested (not the number of tags issued) He explained that if you were issued 100 doe tags and were only using 50 then you do not need as many buck tags until you start fulfilling the 100 doe tags. The other guideline for those properties not currently enrolled in the program will basically be 1 buck per 50 acres. This came from myself and two others talking with Ruth after the meeting.
There was some more but I will let the discussions start here.

This is about the dumbest idea I see in the entire thing. So a very well managed place that only shoots mature bucks, has a very balanced buck to doe ratio and shoots about the same amount of mature bucks as does because that is the best management plan for the property, then the amount of bucks you shoot is going to be cut by 60%? So now they are taking a very managed piece of property and screwing the management plan to hell with this broad stoke idea?

As usual, leave it to the government to screw it up.