• Help Support TNDeer:

Prices going up?

Gmed said:
Not sure I agree with the "species specific" license because, for example, who wants to buy a bear license just in case they were to happen across one during archery season. I would assume all species and all methods would be included in the sportsman's license which is what I get every year any way, but how long will it be before they change that? Should have bought the lifetime when it was first available. Now I'm closer to 65 than I would save much on it…
Click to expand...
Yea I think that is a terrible idea.
 
JJBraves said:
From what I remember being reported (the link that TWRA had which now says "not found") there was a total of 42 blinds built at 30k a piece totaling over $1.2 million not to mention over 2k each to brush them........... multiple different local guys that put in bids for the project were well under half of what that winning bid was (keep in mind the guy that won the bid was based out of state). I guess if you've got the money, spend it! The gas card scandal was not an example of their buddy buddy system. You asked for links of any wrongdoing on TWRA's part, and I sent them.
Click to expand...
JJBraves, Mick must be a TWRA plant. If not he is acting like one. You are right, the TWRA is becoming as corrupt as any other part of our government.
 
MickThompson said:
Indicted and fired are hardly "buddy buddy" and "lining your pockets"
Click to expand...
Ok well lets say for 13 years he lined his pockets.....That's $4,615.38 a year...... how many officers were employed 13 years ago? This is only 1.... Now if it was just this 1 then you've got a stellar outfit. The other side is that all those audits/reconciliations done for all those years were wrong. That makes me say Hmmmmmm.
 
knightrider said:
I will gladly pay 50 cents a day for everything the sportsman's license offers me
Click to expand...
I agree, except who knows what the TWRA uses the money for. Remember the Cumberland Springs WMA? Know why it reverted to private use? Because the landowner was disgusted with the TWRA. The TWRA did nothing with the land. I was told that directly by the landowner, Mary Motlow, well she was in control of the hunting on the land even though the family had sold the Jack Daniels business. Mary was a close friend of mine for many years and she said the TWRA never did one thing with the TWRA after she let them use the land for the WMA. She said they barely even patrolled it.

Not a new issue with the TWRA at all.
 
I won't give a lot of details but I am 1 representative (out of 3) for the landowner of a large WMA now. The landowner requested the TWRA to make a certain change that will benefit hunters. The TWRA committed to making that change….however the change was not actually made in the regulation or guide so hunters won't see the benefit this season. It's very frustrating.
 
PickettSFHunter said:
I won't give a lot of details but I am 1 representative (out of 3) for the landowner of a large WMA now. The landowner requested the TWRA to make a certain change that will benefit hunters. The TWRA committed to making that change….however the change was not actually made in the regulation or guide so hunters won't see the benefit this season. It's very frustrating.
Click to expand...

What does a landowner get from "loaning" ground to TWRA for public hunting use? What does TWRA get? Are landowners being generous with the impression that TWRA will make improvements and manage their ground on TWRA's dime? I'm not sure I understand how these arrangements go.
 
Ski said:
What does a landowner get from "loaning" ground to TWRA for public hunting use? What does TWRA get? Are landowners being generous with the impression that TWRA will make improvements and manage their ground on TWRA's dime? I'm not sure I understand how these arrangements go.
Click to expand...
My situation is not that kind of arrangement. The "landowner" is a government entity comprised of 3 offices. I represent 1 office. The benefit we get is a reduction in deer vehicle collisions, TWRA handles nuisance wildlife calls, mutually handles hog trapping, etc. I just expect that when TWRA says they will implement our wishes, that they will actually do that.
 
PickettSFHunter said:
My situation is not that kind of arrangement. The "landowner" is a government entity comprised of 3 offices. I represent 1 office. The benefit we get is a reduction in deer vehicle collisions, TWRA handles nuisance wildlife calls, mutually handles hog trapping, etc. I just expect that when TWRA says they will implement our wishes, that they will actually do that.
Click to expand...

I'm 100% in agreement if someone gives you their word, they need to uphold it. I was just asking what the agreement is. Who benefits and who funds it? As I understand it TWRA handles all nuisance wildlife calls regardless of type of land. Hog trapping is the only part that might not fall into their normal operations, so is it something they're contractually obligated to do? It's ok if you don't answer. I'm just trying to understand exactly how any of it works. Not trying to pry. Just curious is all.
 
Ski said:
I'm 100% in agreement if someone gives you their word, they need to uphold it. I was just asking what the agreement is. Who benefits and who funds it? As I understand it TWRA handles all nuisance wildlife calls regardless of type of land. Hog trapping is the only part that might not fall into their normal operations, so is it something they're contractually obligated to do? It's ok if you don't answer. I'm just trying to understand exactly how any of it works. Not trying to pry. Just curious is all.
Click to expand...
No problem. We fund the TWRA for the work and there is formal agreement on what will be provided. What the TWRA gets out of the deal is the funding and the ability to offer public land hunts to the hunters of TN. We could handle this internally but TWRA already has their system in place so it's easier to fund and use the TWRA rather than setting up something separate like a lot of military bases do.
 
PickettSFHunter said:
No problem. We fund the TWRA for the work and there is formal agreement on what will be provided. What the TWRA gets out of the deal is the funding and the ability to offer public land hunts to the hunters of TN. We could handle this internally but TWRA already has their system in place so it's easier to fund and use the TWRA rather than setting up something separate like a lot of military bases do.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Makes total sense now. Thank you for taking time to explain.
 
So ORNL gives $$ to twra to run the deer hunts or donates the property and lets them collect the $$ and keep it? lets be honest and put it out there not shade stuff to make it sound worse on TWRA
 
mike243 said:
So ORNL gives $$ to twra to run the deer hunts or donates the property and lets them collect the $$ and keep it? lets be honest and put it out there not shade stuff to make it sound worse on TWRA
Click to expand...
You honestly have no idea what you are talking about. The issue has nothing to do with funding. As stated, the landowner made a reasonable request to benefit the hunters and the landowner. The request hasn't been met. The TWRA agreed to the request in writing. I wish I could provide full details but I can't as it is being worked currently.
 
Your correct, you made a half ass post saying you are in the know and the rest we just have to fill in the blanks. You stated you all funded TWRA that sounds like $$ to me sorry if it was bitcoins or what ever the latest trading stuff is lol
 

Latest posts

Back
Top