SCN - Thank you

[tickweed]

Im surprised as well. About two weeks ago, I went to a commissioners house, not about turkeys, but was asked what I thought. I told them I thought our limit was way to liberal, season way to long, had been for years. Two gobblers is enough for anyone. This commissioner agreed with me, seemed to feel that this was the direction it was going. Kind surprised, others must has not felt this way. I have often wondered, why don't we ever see any one on the commission who are really die hard outdoorsman? I know some may hunt, fish, but most don't seem to really be involved to me.

 

[JCDEERMAN]

Yes - thank you!

Does anyone know the time frame scn started speaking?

 

[TN Larry]

Im surprised as well. About two weeks ago, I went to a commissioners house, not about turkeys, but was asked what I thought. I told them I thought our limit was way to liberal, season way to long, had been for years. Two gobblers is enough for anyone. This commissioner agreed with me, seemed to feel that this was the direction it was going. Kind surprised, others must has not felt this way. I have often wondered, why don't we ever see any one on the commission who are really die hard outdoorsman? I know some may hunt, fish, but most don't seem to really be involved to me.

There were some that pushed for more changes, but they got shot down. Commissioner Jones if I remember correctly is who brought the motion to reduce the limit to 2, but it got voted down.

 

[TheLBLman]

Does anyone know the time frame scn started speaking?

The SCN approaches the podium at 5:36:15

Here's the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWd0Y0L ... b_err_woyt

Keep in mind this is an 8-plus-hour-LONG meeting!

 

[TDW05]

I don't know about y'all, but I like mr. hank wright! He uses common sense and gets to the point. We need more like him IMO. Watching the video just frustrated me.

 

[TheLBLman]

Watching the video just frustrated me.

I agree, regarding the turkey issues.
There is no reason the TWRA couldn't have recommended and the Commissioners couldn't have made some important turkey hunting regulation changes in the 83 counties "outside" that "turkey" study, which is indeed becoming a study of "turkeys" of a different feather.

To their credit, they did do this in a few counties bordering the Mississippi River, but seemed to totally ignore the other 83 counties outside the study area.

As I understood some of the confusing diatribe, one proposal was to make the statewide turkey limit 2, but it was voted down because this change would adversely effect the 6-county turkey study area. Yet no one in the room seemed able to consider just making that change for outside those 6 counties comprising the "study area". Never mind they did just that for those counties bordering the Mississippi River.

 

[Southern Sportsman]

Watching the video just frustrated me.

I agree, regarding the turkey issues.
There is no reason the TWRA couldn't have recommended and the Commissioners couldn't have made some important turkey hunting regulation changes in the 83 counties "outside" that "turkey" study, which is indeed becoming a study of "turkeys" of a different feather.

To their credit, they did do this in a few counties bordering the Mississippi River, but seemed to totally ignore the other 83 counties outside the study area.

As I understood some of the confusing diatribe, one proposal was to make the statewide turkey limit 2, but it was voted down because this change would adversely effect the 6-county turkey study area. Yet no one in the room seemed able to consider just making that change for outside those 6 counties comprising the "study area". Never mind they did just that for those counties bordering the Mississippi River.

They actually did revise the proposed amendment to reduce the statewide limit to 2, but with no limit changes in the 6 research counties. The biologists agreed that that proposal would not impact the research data and it seemed like a perfect compromise. Then it went to vote and was overwhelmingly voted down.

 

[TN Larry]

Watching the video just frustrated me.

I agree, regarding the turkey issues.
There is no reason the TWRA couldn't have recommended and the Commissioners couldn't have made some important turkey hunting regulation changes in the 83 counties "outside" that "turkey" study, which is indeed becoming a study of "turkeys" of a different feather.

To their credit, they did do this in a few counties bordering the Mississippi River, but seemed to totally ignore the other 83 counties outside the study area.

As I understood some of the confusing diatribe, one proposal was to make the statewide turkey limit 2, but it was voted down because this change would adversely effect the 6-county turkey study area. Yet no one in the room seemed able to consider just making that change for outside those 6 counties comprising the "study area". Never mind they did just that for those counties bordering the Mississippi River.

They actually did revise the proposed amendment to reduce the statewide limit to 2, but with no limit changes in the 6 research counties. The biologists agreed that that proposal would not impact the research data and it seemed like a perfect compromise. Then it went to vote and was overwhelmingly voted down.

Are you sure they voted on that one? They talked about it while the motion was on the floor to go to a statewide 2 bird limit. That was eventually shot down by vote. However, I didn't see anyone make the motion as mentioned above and what they talked about. I may have missed that part but didn't think they actually voted. I was hoping that Commissioner Jones would make that motion have he brought up the motion to make the limit 2 statewide.

 

[TN Larry]

now is the time to send thank you emails to anyone who spoke/voted in favor of statewide turkey conservation.

Agreed, I just sent a Thank You email to Commissioner Steve Jones, Hank Wright, and Jimmy Granbery as they seemed to be the three most vocal for turkey conservation and voted for the 2 bird limit.

 

[Gravey]

Kudos SCN and anybody else that spoke up. Thanks!

 

[tellico4x4]

Good job, A+ for effort!

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[Bone Collector]

Thanks Steve! I couldn't go as I had to work. I did send in an e-mail to the general box and to my commissioner as well as the two guys that head up the commission. I guess they didn't count those...

I was glad to see the limit dropped by one bird, but I missed the discussion. after reading this thread I am glad I missed it. I would have been yelling and cussing at the computer.

We all are going to have to keep after them on these issues and not give up, but I have a feeling it will be a long frustrating fight.

 

[Southern Sportsman]

They actually did revise the proposed amendment to reduce the statewide limit to 2, but with no limit changes in the 6 research counties. The biologists agreed that that proposal would not impact the research data and it seemed like a perfect compromise. Then it went to vote and was overwhelmingly voted down.

Are you sure they voted on that one? They talked about it while the motion was on the floor to go to a statewide 2 bird limit. That was eventually shot down by vote. However, I didn't see anyone make the motion as mentioned above and what they talked about. I may have missed that part but didn't think they actually voted. I was hoping that Commissioner Jones would make that motion have he brought up the motion to make the limit 2 statewide.

I went back and re-watched and I think you're right. Jones proposed the 2-bird Amendment. A lot of discussion followed and Granbery suggested leaving the current limit in the research counties but lowering the limit in the rest of the state. Before the roll call vote, Holbert "clarified" that the amendment "has nothing to do with the study zone," but was a statewide proposal. I originally took Holbert's comment to mean that the limit reduction would not apply to the research counties (that are already now designated as a separate unit) but would apply everywhere else statewide. But Jones never actually revised the proposed amendment, so the vote was for all counties including the research counties.

 

[TN Larry]

They actually did revise the proposed amendment to reduce the statewide limit to 2, but with no limit changes in the 6 research counties. The biologists agreed that that proposal would not impact the research data and it seemed like a perfect compromise. Then it went to vote and was overwhelmingly voted down.

Are you sure they voted on that one? They talked about it while the motion was on the floor to go to a statewide 2 bird limit. That was eventually shot down by vote. However, I didn't see anyone make the motion as mentioned above and what they talked about. I may have missed that part but didn't think they actually voted. I was hoping that Commissioner Jones would make that motion have he brought up the motion to make the limit 2 statewide.

I went back and re-watched and I think you're right. Jones proposed the 2-bird Amendment. A lot of discussion followed and Granbery suggested leaving the current limit in the research counties but lowering the limit in the rest of the state. Before the roll call vote, Holbert "clarified" that the amendment "has nothing to do with the study zone," but was a statewide proposal. I originally took Holbert's comment to mean that the limit reduction would not apply to the research counties (that are already now designated as a separate unit) but would apply everywhere else statewide. But Jones never actually revised the proposed amendment, so the vote was for all counties including the research counties.

That was my understanding as well. I thought that Jones or Granbery would have went back and made the amendment to exclude the study zone. This may not have passed but would have probably got more support.

 

[Roost 1]

Thanks Steve and thanks to all of you who sent emails and made your voice heard. What's the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it. SO MANY voices and comments continue to fall on deaf ears, YEARS worth of comments and emails. As LBLMan stated, baby steps are better than no steps, but man, how hamstrung can a ninety-five county statewide program be over a five county study? I sure hope something conclusive comes out of this southern counties study. Thanks everyone for the updates.

I haven't watched the meeting, so this may not apply, but now is the time to send thank you emails to anyone who spoke/voted in favor of statewide turkey conservation.

Got to figure out a way to make the horse thirsty before you lead him to water..........are any of these positions voted in or all appointed?

 

[Southern Sportsman]

Thanks Steve and thanks to all of you who sent emails and made your voice heard. What's the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it. SO MANY voices and comments continue to fall on deaf ears, YEARS worth of comments and emails. As LBLMan stated, baby steps are better than no steps, but man, how hamstrung can a ninety-five county statewide program be over a five county study? I sure hope something conclusive comes out of this southern counties study. Thanks everyone for the updates.

I haven't watched the meeting, so this may not apply, but now is the time to send thank you emails to anyone who spoke/voted in favor of statewide turkey conservation.

Got to figure out a way to make the horse thirsty before you lead him to water..........are any of these positions voted in or all appointed?

All appointed.