bowhunting/management question

[rybohunter]

The bow only season debates sparked me deciding to post this.

Do you think deer (and other game animals where applicable) should be managed solely for hunters & their enjoyment, or should it be a "œresource first"� approach, where a balance between habitat/herd and other influences are all considered?

[GMMAT]

What purpose do these animals serve........except for our "enjoyment"? I mean....as long as we aren't pressuring them into extinction.....why do we need to manage them for anything other than hunting/hunters?

Maybe I didnt understand the question......

[Germ]

ORIGINAL: rybohunter

The bow only season debates sparked me deciding to post this.

Do you think deer (and other game animals where applicable) should be managed solely for hunters & their enjoyment, or should it be a "œresource first"� approach, where a balance between habitat/herd and other influences are all considered?

In Fantasy land the deer would be first, in the USA it's all about cash

"Deer are managed for maximum hunter enjoyment in Michigan"

Rod Clute Head DNR Big Game Michigan

[dukemichaels]

Seriously people.. whats with all the gun rights stuff today? I think its time to open up the bowhunting contest Rob.. things are getting eerie in here.

To answer your Q Rybo..

I think all managed animals should be managed for the resource first approach. But managed by hunters.. and of course lead by biologists..

Can I get an amen..?

Maybe not today then... huh?

[rybohunter]

Jeff,
In many places, a herd can be managed for "maximum targets". Good for hunters....BUT too many deer can damage the habitat...we've shown thisover and over in many parts of PA. So, having less deer that don't destroy the habitat means less targets for hunters. One way is the "resource first" notion, the other is the "hunter" first.

I could go on and on about managing for age structure, buck to doe ratios, etc. Then there is reducing human/deer conflicts. In suburban areas, ideally should be managed for next to no deer existing if you buy into this because then you'd have fewer collisions with cars, and much less property/landscape damage.

In less populated areas It's about balancing the populations,and maintaining the rest of ecosystem at a healthy sustatinable level.In populated areas its about reducing conflict as well.

[tsoc]

Always resource first! Under the guidelines dukemichaels indicated.

[Hoyt_Viper]

In just about every biologist/QDMA resource made available for hunters and "deer management", the buck to doe ration is the most important key. Unless you can successfully manage this, in either scenario (bowhunt/gun) you are pissing in the wind.

If you compare the areas where the ration is 1:1 or even 1:3 you will always find higher scoring deer, more and very intense rut activity, etc. In my area I would guess the ratio is between 1:4-1:6 making the bucks very small and hardly a chance at a p&Y. This is due to the hunt clubs running deer through 900 acres surrounding my property killing anything that was brown...including does during antler only season dates.

ie, the club last year killed 97 deer out of the mentioned area. There was no concern of buttons, spikes, 6 pt's, does, etc.which made for the worse case scenario for QDMA...IMHO.

Unless all hunters practice the same descrectionary actions as the bowhunting P&Y hunter...its a useless atempt at any type of management.

Thats why quiksilver was so successful in making his point in archery only areas. The common saying among the "if its brown its down" hunters is killing ANY type of management efforts.