HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - Deer Management Ideas
View Single Post
Old 01-03-2010 | 07:38 PM
  #26  
BucksBearsnBows's Avatar
BucksBearsnBows
Spike
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: Western PA
Default

Originally Posted by Pahick
Some most certainly are when put in the context you have. And maybe I lend a little bit to that, considering how I worded things. We all have a tendency to generalize, and this is one such case. If we are still talking the NC region I would put that in a different perspective than say the SE area. The problem with any CAC is equal representation. Which under current guidelines they are equally represented. I think we'd both agree. Now consider the amount of state land in 2G compared to Ag or Residential. Do you honestly think they should have equal say? I dont. Whats going to work in lower 2G simply cannot in northern 2G. That said, I dont even think 2G has a CAC or if so, went through any formal meetings as of yet. My point still stands that each stakeholder should not have an equal vote. It can get quite complicated when you take into consideration that even though we have a CAC to advise the PGC their input is only that, advice. The PGC doesnt always listen. A quick look at some of the reports show some stakeholders arent even attending, or they attend one meeting and not the rest. On top of that, their advice is only geared toward regular tags and have zero input towards DMAP. And as you know, as far as 2G is concerned, that WMU is currently in stabilization.....for regular tags. We've been harvesting another what? 20 some-30 some% over regular doe harvest through DMAP. That WMU, 2G, as far as I know is the only WMU currently through DMAP experiencing a double digit % increase over regular doe harvest. Ask yourself why 2G would be given that priority over say 5D? Too much priority is given to DCNR and other stakeholders.

As far as WMI and the audit, I honestly dont have a clue who could do an unbiased review of our policies. When you have a manufacturer go through a safety audit through OSHA, youre following policy set by OSHA. The PGC DMP isnt following guidelines set by WMI. Fact is alot of what we are experiencing in this DMP is new, which is why other states agencies and biologists are watching and taking notes. My skepticism remains, we all have opinions.

I agree that 2G is unique with both the percentage of DCNR controlled land and the DAMP tags. I also think we agree that most of our WMU's are too large and the resulting one size fits all management of each may be causing some extremes on both ends of the deer density scale. The problem is that smaller more intensive management is out of the question under the current budget situation. A situation exacerbated by the likes of the USP and their misguided pressure against a reasonable fee increase. I also agree in part that a merger of agencies might be a good thing but only to the extent of the PFBC and PGC merging. If you think DCNR has too much say now, how could you possibly support their being merged with our game commission?

As for the WMI audit, i prefer to see the results before I endorse or condemn it.
BucksBearsnBows is offline  
Reply