Biological Question?

[livinoutdoors]

Thanks for the kind words, but I have to disagree with your first statement. I know quite a few biologists spanning a wide range of political beliefs and you would be surprised at how similar their views on wildlife conservation and hunting are. The danger comes from a huge population of people with no knowledge about wildlife and habitat management, not those that received formal training in the subject.

Wildlife conservation is one of those funny areas where leftys and conservitives all come together for different reasons for sure, but end up tryin to accomplish the same thing. Proper management of the resouce increases hunter satisfaction and nature lovers as well.

 

[spurrs and racks]

“The danger comes from a huge population of people with no knowledge about wildlife and habitat management, not those that received formal training in the subject. "


wow, awesome..........

Like the folks we work for have never wavered on the opinion for the sake of state or federal money......

or for the sake of the dollars hunting and fishing pump into our economy

example A..........

https://www.macon.com/news/nation-world/national/article227196829.html

from today's mullet wrapper

example B

https://news.yahoo.com/ap-newsbreak-us-plans-lift-protections-gray-wolves-154952263.html

I didn't know we had grey wolves in Georgia, this article clearly states the "Lower 48" like these wolves are every where.

For the record, I agree with you....for the most part

 

[Thunder Head]

For anyone interested. This is a S.C. study on how hunting season affects turkey breeding and other aspects of the declining turkey population. Some of it is quite tedious but there are some good tid bits in there.

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/turkey/pdf/2018SCDNRTurkeyReporttoGeneralAssembly.pdf

 

[buckpasser]

For anyone interested. This is a S.C. study on how hunting season affects turkey breeding and other aspects of the declining turkey population. Some of it is quite tedious but there are some good tid bits in there.

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/turkey/pdf/2018SCDNRTurkeyReporttoGeneralAssembly.pdf

There is lots of interesting information in that. I’d like to see the average dates for Georgia. I could be wrong, but we’re just too diverse a state even compared to SC with the north - south span of our state and the huge elevation differences to have a relevant “average”. Zoning seems tempting, but I’d really prefer to not not add pressure down here with the north GA folks wanting to get in on the action for a week or two before their season begins. There really couldn’t be much relevant reciprocal action unless they closed season really early down here and the south GA hunters could finish the season up north if they wanted. I’d just be content if the jackholes around here would wait on turkey season to begin their hunting.

 

[swamp hunter]

Stopping Deer hunting for a couple years is not necessary , it's kinda Self Policing , No deer seen for a couple years and the Causal Hunter will take up something else.
Only the Serious will keep on , and some of them will simply drive somewhere else.
No Chicks in this Bar , Let's go hit another one ...
All areas cannot support a lot of Deer. My Home Base next to the Everglades it's 1.2 Deer per square mile...Before Panther Reintroduction..now it's about .2 PSM.

 

[Nicodemus]

Stopping Deer hunting for a couple years is not necessary , it's kinda Self Policing , No deer seen for a couple years and the Causal Hunter will take up something else.
Only the Serious will keep on , and some of them will simply drive somewhere else.
No Chicks in this Bar , Let's go hit another one ...
All areas cannot support a lot of Deer. My Home Base next to the Everglades it's 1.2 Deer per square mile...Before Panther Reintroduction..now it's about .2 PSM.

I`d like to get up with you with my camera and try to count coup on one of those swamp lions. Some good close up shots of one would be a trophy to me.

 

[Swamprat]

Stopping Deer hunting for a couple years is not necessary , it's kinda Self Policing , No deer seen for a couple years and the Causal Hunter will take up something else.
Only the Serious will keep on , and some of them will simply drive somewhere else.
No Chicks in this Bar , Let's go hit another one ...
All areas cannot support a lot of Deer. My Home Base next to the Everglades it's 1.2 Deer per square mile...Before Panther Reintroduction..now it's about .2 PSM.

Yep....and pigs, coons, rabbits, etc. are starting to become a " I remember when type of thing" Between them government cash cow kitties and the pythons the Glades is dying of diverse wildlife.

 

[Possum]

Stopping Deer hunting for a couple years is not necessary , it's kinda Self Policing , No deer seen for a couple years and the Causal Hunter will take up something else.
Only the Serious will keep on , and some of them will simply drive somewhere else.
No Chicks in this Bar , Let's go hit another one ...
All areas cannot support a lot of Deer. My Home Base next to the Everglades it's 1.2 Deer per square mile...Before Panther Reintroduction..now it's about .2 PSM.

This is true. 15 years ago you couldn’t drive down the road I live on without seeing a truck every few hundred yards. I’d always see other hunters in the woods. When the deer disappeared so did the hunters. I Saw one other hunter in the woods last season for the first time in probably 5 years.

 

[swamp hunter]

Nic , I'd put another Trail Cam out but we got so many Bears right now they just rip them off the trees..and you know we're in water bout everywhere.
Ripped open Trail Cams and water don't mix well...

 

[lonewolf247]

I think benefit of the wildlife for sure!

 

[srb]

There is several issues going on with wildlife now........

 

[Nicodemus]

To answer my own question, I think wildlife should be managed for the benefit of the wildlife. If it`s done properly wildlife will prosper, the ecosystem will prosper, and then hunters will benefit as well.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

Sad thing is, big business and money is involved. Not pure anymore.....

 

[Huntmaster2]

I think the purpose of a game agency should be to manage the wildlife. I hope that management includes hunting. Many animals benefit from the dollars and time spent by hunters. Hunting gives many animals value they would not have otherwise! Great thread Nicodemus. We shouldn't get complacent.

 

[TerrellBuckman]

Should wildlife (in this case, deer) be managed for hunter satisfaction, or for the benefit of the wildlife?


I`ll check back in a week or two. I`m curious as to what the results will be.

I am for benefit of the hunter, I enjoy killing my 12 deer a year

 

[GottaGetOutdoors]

Wildlife management in the US is built on what is called the North American Model of Fish & Wildlife Conservation. I encourage you to read it and better understand the foundation.

https://www.fws.gov/hunting/north-american-model-of-wildlife-conservation.html

Here are its key pillars. Items 6 & 7 speak to this thread's original question.

1. Wildlife is a public resource. In the USA, wildlife is considered a public resource, independent of the land or water where wildlife may live. Government at various levels have a role in managing that resource on behalf of all citizens and to ensure long-term sustainability of wildlife populations.
2. Markets for game are eliminated. Before wildlife protection laws were enacted, commercial operations decimated populations of many species. Making it illegal to buy and sell meat and parts of game and nongame species removed a huge threat to the survival of those species. A market in furbearers continues as a highly regulated activity, often to manage invasive wildlife.
3. Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as hunting seasons, bag limits, licenses, etc.
4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. Wildlife is a shared resource that must not be wasted. The law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons.
5. Wildlife species are considered an international resource. Some species, such as migratory birds, cross national boundaries. Treaties such as the Migratory Bird Treaty and CITES recognize a shared responsibility to manage these species across national boundaries.
6. Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. In order to manage wildlife as a shared resource fairly, objectively, and knowledgeably, decisions must be based on sound science such as annual waterfowl population surveys and the work of professional wildlife biologists.
7. The democracy of hunting. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership.

 

[across the river]

Sad thing is, big business and money is involved. Not pure anymore.....

So when the bison, passenger pigeons, white tail deer, duck species etc... were eradicated or nearly eradicated from the face of the earth, that was better because it was pure, people were just hunting for mea, and big money wasn't involved? O.k. The truth of the matter is management practices are probably better overall now than they have ever been due in large part to the fact that games animals have value and people are willing to spend big money on them and on habitat and improving it. Look at waterfowl populations. Most species are well above the long term average even as a habitat loss has continued. Why, mainly because hunters and hunter dollars (most of it private and not "pure" as you put it) have gone to establishing habitat up and down the flyway for ducks in hopes of shooting a few or getting paid by someone else who want sot shoot a few. Songbirds on the other hand, that can't be hunted have continued to steadily decline, because the "pure" bird watchers aren't putting up the kind of money hunters are for habitat conservation and improvement, and they don't realize a simple bird feeder in the yard doesn't equate to conservation. You can't think what you want, but if money wasn't involved it would be worse from a conservation standpoint, not better. Thinking otherwise is uninformed. I don't think anyone would or could argue that the habitat, deer health, population, etc....is typically much better on a piece of well managed private land than it is on your average piece of public ground or typically club where a person is hunting every 25 acre with no real management going on. Like it or not, more money generally equates to better manage regardless of what part of the world you are in.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

I 100% agree it takes money to manage wildlife, I spend plenty of it. Let me clarify. When I wrote that post, I was thinking back to my younger days when all the gimmicks weren't involved. IMHO it was more "pure" back then but thanks for calling me out....

And you don't think big business has something to do with the 12 deer tags we have per person???

 

[spurrs and racks]

"And you don't think big business is not the reason we have 12 deer tags per person??? "

Insurance companies and farmers

 

[across the river]

I 100% agree it takes money to manage wildlife, I spend plenty of it. Let me clarify. When I wrote that post, I was thinking back to my younger days when all the gimmicks weren't involved. IMHO it was more "pure" back then but thanks for calling me out....

And you don't think big business has something to do with the 12 deer tags we have per person???

I think in the nineties you had 1.5 to 2 million deer in the state and places were over run with deer. People hammered the bucks and doe days were limited, so in most of the state you had tons of does to one buck and most bucks were low in age class. The tags were increased to 7 then a limit of 12 with very liberal doe days. I think the DNR accomplished what they wanted and got the population down. Do I think there are places or tracts of land that have been over harvested and can't recover because of hunting pressure, lack of habitat, and coyote pressure, yes. But overall the deer heard is way healthier and balanced now that in was in 1990. Just look at the age and number of mature bucks killed now compared to 20 or 30 years ago. If I have said once I have said it 1000 times, the 12 deer limit has absolutely nothing to do will people not seeing deer because 99% don't come close to killing 12 and most don't kill 2. It is the 10 people hunting 300 acres all trying to kill one or two that is the problem. People need to quit blaming the insurance companies and realize most places can't survive one hunter per 25 acres even if the limit was one.