j-bird
Moderator
Well I have a pretty good relationship with my District Wildlife Biologist, an I was engaged in some e-mail traffic with him and then a switch was flipped!
With the recent on-line course many of us are taking I started to investigate better ways to monitor my habitat condition (as you can see from my browse exclusion cage post). As part of that investigation I had asked my biologist if he has ever conducted a browse impact survey and his thoughts on the accuracy of bed or pellet counts for estimating deer numbers.
He didn't feel the bed or pellet counts where very accurate and claimed the best way to get a deer density or population survey was with snow on the ground and done from the air. Well that is all fine and good, but not everybody is going to spend that kind of money. Now by BIL is a pilot so I could do one if I really wanted to, but again it won't be cheap with renting the plane and fuel.
His reply to the browse study question was (and I am not kidding here), "What's a browse study?" I was floored.
So based on those responses I asked him in his professional opinion how a land owner is best to monitor deer numbers and habitat condition on the property. That was when the switch was flipped! His reply was as political and unscientific as you can expect. It starts with "The Division's recommendations......" The gist of the reply was you should hunt for 1 full day with a firearm or 5 full days with archery for every 5 acres of habitat you have. Target success rate was stated to be 1 antlerless deer per 5 full days of hunting. If you are more successful than that - keep shooting deer! The "habitat" component of the statement essentially said if you continue to see damage - shoot more deer next year.
Here I am trying to base my decisions on data and information and I get a statement with virtually no real science behind it from what I can tell. It seems like every time I think I have an understanding of the direction of my DNR I get some sort of "policy statement" that seems to lack any real science our data. No estimated herd numbers or even densities, no target levels specified, just blanket statements of different versions of saying kill more deer.
My frustration comes from being stuck in the middle. Many hunters in my state are used to the over populated numbers and I know it has created habitat damage. My general thought in those cases is that yes they need to drive numbers down, even though many hunters are against it. I think many of those hunters do not understand the habitat health aspect of the need. Now on the flip side I have hunted and live in an area with a low deer density as it is. I never had a deer behind every tree. In fact when I started I struggled to even see a deer during our 16 day firearm season. I know my density is increasing - habitat and especially cover availability has improved. I see far more deer now than ever, but how many is too many? I want to support a system where decisions are made on data and information - not blanket policies. Taking multiple does in my area will have a far more profound impact than taking the same number of does in the more populated counties. "Kill more deer" isn't management!
Rant over. Come on powerball!!!!!!
With the recent on-line course many of us are taking I started to investigate better ways to monitor my habitat condition (as you can see from my browse exclusion cage post). As part of that investigation I had asked my biologist if he has ever conducted a browse impact survey and his thoughts on the accuracy of bed or pellet counts for estimating deer numbers.
He didn't feel the bed or pellet counts where very accurate and claimed the best way to get a deer density or population survey was with snow on the ground and done from the air. Well that is all fine and good, but not everybody is going to spend that kind of money. Now by BIL is a pilot so I could do one if I really wanted to, but again it won't be cheap with renting the plane and fuel.
His reply to the browse study question was (and I am not kidding here), "What's a browse study?" I was floored.
So based on those responses I asked him in his professional opinion how a land owner is best to monitor deer numbers and habitat condition on the property. That was when the switch was flipped! His reply was as political and unscientific as you can expect. It starts with "The Division's recommendations......" The gist of the reply was you should hunt for 1 full day with a firearm or 5 full days with archery for every 5 acres of habitat you have. Target success rate was stated to be 1 antlerless deer per 5 full days of hunting. If you are more successful than that - keep shooting deer! The "habitat" component of the statement essentially said if you continue to see damage - shoot more deer next year.
Here I am trying to base my decisions on data and information and I get a statement with virtually no real science behind it from what I can tell. It seems like every time I think I have an understanding of the direction of my DNR I get some sort of "policy statement" that seems to lack any real science our data. No estimated herd numbers or even densities, no target levels specified, just blanket statements of different versions of saying kill more deer.
My frustration comes from being stuck in the middle. Many hunters in my state are used to the over populated numbers and I know it has created habitat damage. My general thought in those cases is that yes they need to drive numbers down, even though many hunters are against it. I think many of those hunters do not understand the habitat health aspect of the need. Now on the flip side I have hunted and live in an area with a low deer density as it is. I never had a deer behind every tree. In fact when I started I struggled to even see a deer during our 16 day firearm season. I know my density is increasing - habitat and especially cover availability has improved. I see far more deer now than ever, but how many is too many? I want to support a system where decisions are made on data and information - not blanket policies. Taking multiple does in my area will have a far more profound impact than taking the same number of does in the more populated counties. "Kill more deer" isn't management!
Rant over. Come on powerball!!!!!!
Last edited: