NG ALUM
Banned
Thanks for the stats info. I think there is a line here between those who have plenty of deer and those who don't. The only thing that is frustrating is the idea that the "have nots" are not good hunters, have not been responsible hunters, or have little perspective. Across this argument is a wide range of experience, ability, and location. Perhaps there is logic to be found in both? Certainly facts can be used in both directions.
As far as the approach the state takes to manage on a state wide level, not a local level, I do believe other states handle it in a much more local way, which seems to work out fine for them as well (that is just based on what I hear, I am sure there are two sides to that as well).
The only thing I can't get beyond is the responsibility given to hunters in this arrangement to "do the right thing," as well as the disregard for the small lease holder who is more vulnerable to irresponsible hunters than the large lease holder, who has a larger plot of land to manage. Here is an example:
I could have a 100 acre lease next to 3 other 100 acre leases with good intentions. 400 acres of well managed land there. But if any of these 4 leases are next to some goober on another 100 acre lease who shoots every deer that walks by, then all 5 leases lose. That is 500 acres, and if I remember the numbers correctly, less than 8 does should be taken to maintain the herd. Lets say the first 4 shoot one doe a piece, and the fifth guy shoots 5 (plenty of folks out there shoot 5 does every year, just using realistic numbers), well, the deer herd is going downhill. It's hard enough for folks to manage their own lease let alone everybody else's.
Aside from those two issues, I agree on all other points.
Ok to address these issues...The state doesn't expect any hunter to do the right thing. They actually know some people WILL do the wrong thing, while others do the right thing, while others do nothing. If they didn't expect people to do wrong the whole plan would fail. Nobody says you don't know what your doing. Your problem is simple like you said. "the guy on the hundred acres next to you killed to dang many deer for the local population to handle" Thats unfortunate for you but has got to happen somewhere.It's all accounted for. I'll show you in a very simple.
i am making up the following numbers for simplicity!
The state of GA has 3,000 acres statewide. of that 900 is developed city property. this leaves 2,100 of suitable forested or agricultural land. based on historical evidence we know that with ga soil type and natural food source deer survive best at roughly 15 head per acre. this gives us a desirable population of 15 * 2,100= 31,500 deer to live in georgia. We also know that deer reproduce at a rate of 3,500 per year so in one year the 31,500 turns into 35,000. well that is a problem cause now they are over populated so here is the solution.
There are 1,000 hunters in georgia and we need them to kill 3,500 deer so thats means each hunter gets to kill 3.5 right?
WRONG! we also know based on past warden tickets and local surveys that 50% (500)of hunters only killed 1 deer per person last year just because they trophy hunted while the other 50% (500) hunters killed six because they have no reguard of the law! oh no!!
So we set the limit at six, because we know 50% will only shoot 1 totaling 500 deer while the other 50% will shoot 6 totaling 3,000. This puts our total kill at 3,500 which was the target number in the first place and gives Georgia a stable deer population again.
Im sorry you live next to the guy that shoots 6 deer ever year but thats how it's gotta be.
I completely made up this very simple scenerio and this in in no way correct. It's just a very simple comparason to how VERY ELEMENTARY statistics help with our game management...
Last edited: