Oklahoma Hunters

[ancient-one]

For those of you that are not aware of it, Gov. Stitt vetoed SB566, the legislation that would have allowed commercial hunting on Wildlife Dept. Public Hunting Areas. This happened because of the number of people who expressed their opposition.
Now we need to give him a THANK YOU. To do that type in OK. Gov. Stitt, click on his website, click on Contact at the top of the page and the blanks are there to fill in.
When your finished hit submit, wait a short time and you will see a copy of your message as it will be transmitted. Hit submit again.

Later this afternoon I am going to try to post the websites where you can find the bills to be argued and another that gives each action through completion.
THE LEGISLATORS ARE PRETTY SNEAKY. NOW WE HAVE TO WATCH FOR THEM TO TRY TO OVER RIDE HIS VETO!

 

[Watchdog]

My opinion? Good for him. It's about time some elected officials stood up for the will of the people who put them in office.

 

[bigwheelzip]

Graydon, I'm not an OK constituent, or a hunter, but I am curious about what is the downside of allowing guided hunting on state land. Would you inform me please?

I did look up the legislation but still don't understand an inherent downside.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Graydon, I'm not an OK constituent, or a hunter, but I am curious about what is the downside of allowing guided hunting on state land. Would you inform me please?

I did look up the legislation but still don't understand an inherent downside.

There was a concern that a hunter would arrive at a state owned hunting spot that he previously considered his’n and find it occupied by a paid guide party . . .

 

[Old TexMex]

“Establish fees” is pretty clear to me. Individuals only needed contribute to the state in the form of a license to hunt.

 

[Geronimo Jim]

Sounds like an anti hunting, anti gun veto to me. But
what do I know?

 

[ancient-one]

First, the veto has nothing in any way to do with anti-hunting or anti-gun. Second this land was bought with license fee receipt money and was purchased to provide hunting areas for hunters without access to private lands and was never intended for use by commercial hunting operations.

I hunted some of these areas for several years and the quail population was never large. Guides with good dogs and several hunters could and would clean birds from an area in a short time. Just think about arriving at a hunting area and finding it covered by a commercial guide and his clients.
It is also very probable that hunters favorite deer stand spots would be taken by commercial hunting operations. This would lead to serious confrontations that should have never happened.
Oklahoma legislators as well as legislators in other states often introduce
legislation benefiting special interest groups(and in many cases themselves) with no regard for the interests of the majority of people who elected them. I would wager that in this case some promises of free guided hunts were involved.
Just consider who really benefited from this legislation. There is only one answer. The commercial guide operations, period. The person who introduced this legislation actually told a newspaper person that he did it at the request of some guides and outfitters.
I hope that this answers your questions. If not, I can't explain it.

 

[Watchdog]

First, the veto has nothing in any way to do with anti-hunting or anti-gun.

Second this land was bought with license fee receipt money and was purchased to provide hunting areas for hunters without access to private lands and was never intended for use by commercial hunting operations.

I hunted some of these areas for several years and the quail population was never large. Guides with good dogs and several hunters could and would clean birds from an area in a short time. Just think about arriving at a hunting area and finding it covered by a commercial guide and his clients.

It is also very probable that hunters favorite deer stand spots would be taken by commercial hunting operations. This would lead to serious confrontations that should have never happened.

Oklahoma legislators as well as legislators in other states often introduce legislation benefiting special interest groups(and in many cases themselves) with no regard for the interests of the majority of people who elected them. I would wager that in this case some promises of free guided hunts were involved.

Just consider who really benefited from this legislation. There is only one answer. The commercial guide operations, period. The person who introduced this legislation actually told a newspaper person that he did it at the request of some guides and outfitters.

I hope that this answers your questions. If not, I can't explain it.

Everything you say rings true and bears repeating...which is why I quoted your entire post.

Well said.

 

[bigwheelzip]

Thanks Graydon, for taking the time for a thorough answer.
I had no idea that guides might overwhelm certain species in an area. Too bad they didn't write the bill pertaining only to the feral hog harvest.

From what you wrote, I have to assume that the current method for game guides to ply their trade, is to secure access to private land.

Good luck.

 

[jmtgsx]

I am an Oklahoma resident, not really an active hunter. I appreciate your posting this and left a supportive comment on the governor's website as recommended. Thank you!