West Branch, I was implying that I think Grund would prefer to use biology rather than sociology to establish population goals. If that were done, I'd pretty much guarantee than 20 DPSM would be the highest densities managed for.
I was probably over thinking it some, which tends to happen. But I do think it sounds like a cop-out on Grund's part to say he isn't managing deer based on biology. Even though the goals are socially there is helluva of a lot of stuff they can do based biology to get to those goals. When a population model shows that large areas have virtually flat populations over 10+ years of extra antlerless tags you would think that a biologist would question that and look into it.
The couple email exchanges I had with Grund were as follows:
Me - Whats the deal with these DPSM #s in our permit area from year to year.
Grund - You have to look at the bigger picture over longer periods of time, not just minor year to year changes.
Me - So in the big picture, what about the harvest drop of 30%+ over 5 years but the model only being down 7%?
Grund - well if we look at year to year changes they aren't as significant.
Me - how is a 25% harvest drop when both years were managed "minor".
Grund - you have to look at the big picture.
And he just keeps flipping back and forth. I talked to him on the phone some and had some other ridiculous email exchanges that were essentially the same. If we switched to 100% biology I think he would flip and say well we should be using more sociology.
Hopefully this audit + a written deer management plan will create some accountability.
