On the poll here at first I voted to allow barrs, but the more I think about it, I can see both sides. I don't hunt the contest or catch any barrs, but here is an example I thought of.
I hunt the 24 hour varmint hunts and years ago there was no animal limit. The contest was growing and people were killing 10 animals or so and doing pretty good. Then here comes this team that had tons country and the coyotes to go with it. Several hunts they were bringing in over 20 coyotes, I think one time they brought in almost 30 in one night of hunting. Lots of people quit hunting or went to another hunt because they knew they couldn't compete with that. Now the hunt has cap on the number of animals being brought in, no more that 6 coyotes or 5 bobcats. Which is still a good stringer of animals, but it leveled the playing field and the hunt has grown again.
The barrs are kinda the same way, from what i've read "most" times barrs get pretty big. If barr hogs keep winning the contest then people who don't have access to barrs, they will go to different hunts, therefore their money won't be going to TDHA. Which seems to be the goal of TDHA is to maintain a good hunt to keep the donation and lobbying money coming in. But I can seee where the pro barr guys are coming from, if you catch a good barr and it wrecks your dogs it would suck for that not to count.
Very valid point.
