Biological Question?

[Nicodemus]

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.

 

[JustUs4All]

For the benefit of the wildlife we should open a season on each other.

 

[C.Killmaster]

For the benefit of the wildlife we should open a season on each other.

Already is, just look at your own avatar.

 

[shdw633]

Benefit of wildlife because without them there is no hunter satisfaction, we get that as a by product of the work done for the benefit of wildlife.

You could have done a poll on this.

 

[SC Hunter]

Benefit of wildlife

 

[Thunder Head]

It should be benefit of the wildlife.

Unfortunately that's not how the human race operates. If the wildlife dosent pay its on way it will be pushed to the way side.

 

[ryanh487]

But if we manage for the wildlife I can't kill 12 deer a year so I can donate 9 of them to charity, family and friends and then complain about not seeing any deer the next season.

 

[bilgerat]

benefit of the wildlife

 

[elfiii]

Benefit of wildlife first, last, always. We’re supposed to be stewards of the resource.

 

[Possum]

both.

Because the end goal should be a healthy deer herd but without taking into consideration hunter success and hunter recruitment, there would less deer hunters (less revenue) and a deer herd that would be less healthy.

To the extent the management decisions need to consider hunter benefit is debatable.

Obviously the decision that allowed deer hunting over bait was almost entirely for the hunter’s benefit and not for health of deer herd.

But it’s a desision that made a lot of hunters happy and as a result, the state will probably collect more revenue in the long run that they can use to study and improve the GA deer herd.

So using that example, a decision that was for benefit of the hunter is in a small part also a benefit for the deer herd.

Going the other way, consider if the state decided that the deer herd could adequately be managed in a two week season and one deer limit. How many less people would buy a license? How many less people would be improving habitat? I’d say a lot less.

My 2cents

 

[1eyefishing]

I think that managing the deer for the benefit of the deer is also the most beneficial to the hunter.

 

[ryanh487]

both.

Because the end goal should be a healthy deer herd but without taking into consideration hunter success and hunter recruitment, there would less deer hunters (less revenue) and a deer herd that would be less healthy.

To the extent the management decisions need to consider hunter benefit is debatable.

Obviously the decision that allowed deer hunting over bait was almost entirely for the hunter’s benefit and not for health of deer herd.

But it’s a desision that made a lot of hunters happy and as a result, the state will probably collect more revenue in the long run that they can use to study and improve the GA deer herd.

So using that example, a decision that was for benefit of the hunter is in a small part also a benefit for the deer herd.

Going the other way, consider if the state decided that the deer herd could adequately be managed in a two week season and one deer limit. How many less people would buy a license? How many less people would be improving habitat? I’d say a lot less.

My 2cents

There are some things that can benefit hunters without harming the deer herd. I think allowing those things is OK. But hunter benefit should not be favored over something that harms the herd. Baiting was allowed and harvest numbers were reduced, so clearly deer numbers weren't harmed by the allowance of corn.

 

[Possum]

I’m sure Mr Killmaster could give a idea of all the resources the state invests in quality/health of wildlife. I know there’s a lot going into studying why our mountain deer herd is disappearing. I’m sure they spend a good bit on CWD and other diseases. That work is very expensive and is only possible because of the revenue hunters provide. The state knows they have to consider hunter satisfaction in a small part in their wildlife desisions to keep the engine running.

 

[XIronheadX]

I'm all about the wildlife first. And, don't mind some satisfaction. Then again I enjoy conservation as much as hunting. Satisfaction can be interpreted many ways in hunting. It has to go hand in hand, because the benefit of the wildlife is dependent on the hunters existence in 2019. Balancing public and private and $ is where the issues arise.

 

[Nicodemus]

Good thoughts. Ya`ll keep em coming.

 

[JustUs4All]

I like the idea of managing wildlife for the benefit of the wildlife, but when you put the .Gov in charge you always gotta watch for the Snail Darter problem.

 

[spurrs and racks]

The deer limit, although much ballyhooed, is really about a healthy deer herd.

IMHO not worth anything.......

 

[Esau]

Nature (including deer) does not need much help from us, it manages itself very well. We do need to manage people for the benefit of wildlife and ourselves. We have a tendency to destroy things if we are not held in check in some fashion. With all of that, I still like to keep the regulation to a minimum.

 

[C.Killmaster]

I'll withhold my opinion for a while and see what everyone says. Thus far no one has hit on it.

 

[Pig Predator]

Properly managed land would benefit both equally.