We opted out for now because there is not enough information in that article to make a long term decision on private land. Maybe if they discussed future intentions, we would be more interested. My guess is this will be most useful for public land where the department has the most control over management.
https://www.wildlifedepartment.com/outdoor-news/bowhunters-sought-observers-during-deer-season
I would like to hear input from those in other states (E308) who have done this survey work in the past...what has been the outcome?
Below are a few of my thoughts/opinions:
Why do the legwork the state has done in the past? Don't they get paid to do roadside surveys? They claim to be the ones in charge of wildlife monitoring and management? What compensation do we get for doing the survey work on private land?
For example, when results come back for a landowner in zone X and those results indicate deer density is too high then how will he be compensated to adjust that? Will the 1000 ac limit for DMAP doe permits be abolished? Will he remain under the bag limits for that zone which are set upon averages?...even though his density is above average? Will current zones be split into smaller management units? What is the logistical outcome of the survey?...the long-term goals?
My point here is that land fragmentation into small parcels, spottiness of rainfall, soil types, and degree of vegetative succession/disturbance etc interact with one another to create non-uniform deer density within zones. The further west you go the more 'pocketized' wildlife become.Thus, regulations at the zone level (landscape) are useless when most habitat/density mismatches are at local scale with non-uniform distribution.
As a steward, you should know herd density and habitat adequacy and the match or mismatch of the two for your property (local scale). All you need from the state is more leeway to adjust animal density (at local scale not regional scale) and monetary or labor incentive to improve habitat (provided one cares in the first place and/or is not too lazy). Wildlife management is not rocket science!
Answer these three questions for me, please:
What hinders you from properly adjusting wildlife density on your property each year?
What hinders you from achieving all of the wildlife habitat management goals necessary for your property each year?
Has a state or private wildlife consultant ever visited your property and given recommendations? (OK has plenty of free consultation)
+
https://www.wildlifedepartment.com/outdoor-news/bowhunters-sought-observers-during-deer-season
I would like to hear input from those in other states (E308) who have done this survey work in the past...what has been the outcome?
Below are a few of my thoughts/opinions:
Why do the legwork the state has done in the past? Don't they get paid to do roadside surveys? They claim to be the ones in charge of wildlife monitoring and management? What compensation do we get for doing the survey work on private land?
For example, when results come back for a landowner in zone X and those results indicate deer density is too high then how will he be compensated to adjust that? Will the 1000 ac limit for DMAP doe permits be abolished? Will he remain under the bag limits for that zone which are set upon averages?...even though his density is above average? Will current zones be split into smaller management units? What is the logistical outcome of the survey?...the long-term goals?
My point here is that land fragmentation into small parcels, spottiness of rainfall, soil types, and degree of vegetative succession/disturbance etc interact with one another to create non-uniform deer density within zones. The further west you go the more 'pocketized' wildlife become.Thus, regulations at the zone level (landscape) are useless when most habitat/density mismatches are at local scale with non-uniform distribution.
As a steward, you should know herd density and habitat adequacy and the match or mismatch of the two for your property (local scale). All you need from the state is more leeway to adjust animal density (at local scale not regional scale) and monetary or labor incentive to improve habitat (provided one cares in the first place and/or is not too lazy). Wildlife management is not rocket science!
Answer these three questions for me, please:
What hinders you from properly adjusting wildlife density on your property each year?
What hinders you from achieving all of the wildlife habitat management goals necessary for your property each year?
Has a state or private wildlife consultant ever visited your property and given recommendations? (OK has plenty of free consultation)
+
