bawanajim

I can't think of any down sides to owning land and managing it as you see fit. Of course thats just me.

I guess if I viewed the world as a barren, deer free wasteland like you do I would understand why you found it so despicable that I took that fine young boy deer hunting, now his life will be ruined as the years pass, and he walks aimlessly in search of anther deer on state lands that we all know have been rid of those tree eating, car wrecking, tick spreading vermin A.K.A. the white tailed deer.

What have I done?

Pahick

I believe trespassing is going to get worse. Owning land isnt a piece of cake.

bawanajim

Cell phones make dealing with trespassers as quick and simple as 911.

Cornelius08

I just threw that percentage out there for conversation sake, it would be better probably if that varied from area to area of course, but for this wmu id think it appropriate or in the ballpark.

Pgc does estimate deer herd density per wmu on the annual reports. 20% increase to the overwinter herd would be a helluva lot lower than the 50%+ reduction we've experience thusfar in this particular wmu. Not only is it a lower percentage, but a lower percentage of a lower number, so we'd still be nowhere hear where we started. If thats not reasonable, i dont know what is. But it would accomplish some things aside from only a few more deer. It would restore some faith in the agency among hunters. Just as important it would mean the decline had ceased. Something that hasnt necessarily occurred despite claims of "stabilization".

germain

The 20% number is broad.Heck I know of a few SGL's around here that could easily hold 50-75% more deer.But then there's places in the western part of the state that could probably use a 50% decrease.In most cases it comes down to access.

Cornelius08

I agree germain. 20% was just a bare minimum as a starting point at the very least. Not saying it would be ideal for all areas immediately. Im saying something is better than nothing. Also If theyd go for more in some areas, hell im all for that too. Seeing as we are getting zip, nada, scratch, zero currently, thought it an improvement.

I dont imagine sras would be permitted to grow the herd and probably wouldnt even be a consideration in the urban areas. Dont know if they need 50% reduction. Certainly dont for the habitat. I believe pgc does want further reduction there for human conflict issues. Dont imagine thered be any way around that, though restructuring the boundaries might help some?

DougE

I never said anything about the PGC not having an estimate on the herd.I'm talking everone's own little area where they hunt.Nobody,including me has any clue how many deer are in the areas where they hunt.Without knowing that,how can anyone claim what percentage the herd should be increased?

DougE

I can show you two state game lands within a short drive from your camp where you could expect to see more than just double digits of deer/day on days where people are in the woods moving them around.I've talked to 4 people in the past week that all saw in excess of 20 deer per day on SGL 93 and two others that saw that many ob SGL 77.We'll take a walk in those areas and I'LL SHOW YOU.You'll also be impressed with the huge amounts of habitat improvements.

Cornelius08

Because the herd isnt "micromanaged", if pgc wanted a wmu herd higher, as MOST in MOST wmus would want, theyd cut the tags, and thats exactly what they need to do. I wasnt talking about each of our "own little area", because the areas effected are the majority of the wmus. This bears out on the annual reports data. The over 50% decline didnt just happen in this wmu on "my little area". Also the "less than 10 dpsm in the north didnt happen in just one hundred acre parcel. Those are AVERAGES of the entire areas spoken of. And you could go on down the line speaking of the wmus that most certainly could hold at the very least minimal increases, and in some cases more.

Im also not basing my contention that more deer could be and should be had upon "my little area" alone. Its also based on what most others are saying (across the board) and what the pgc data has told us historically about how many deer we could have (across the board) considering where we were and where we are and all that goes along with that. also based upon what is "normal" in other similar areas comparatively in other state.

I believe it was already explained to you by both bb and also myself, that we werent speaking of "our little areas alone" when you were told about the pgc deer density estimates per wmu, so im pretty sure you know what was being said.

I have many considerations factored in to my position that there is absolutely no reason preventing even the most reasonable increases from being had. Im not buying for one second, nor do i believe most of the sportsmen of this state would either.

How is there any guarantee the lands an individual hunts on would experience the said increase percentage? Absolutely none. But Id darn sure rather take my chances with significantly less tags and the goal of 20% increase for the wmu overall. (or whatever the case may be)

bluebird2

You said "no one knows" and that would include the PGC. you don't have to know how many deer you have to know having 20% more deer would improve hunting by around 20%.