B
bat man
Guest
So when you speak of habitat you include the freeway?
Why I'm here...
- Thread starter yoderjac
- Start date
So when you speak of habitat you include the freeway?
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
Absolutely. Deer/vehicle collisions are a major issue in some areas. Major highways without planned crossings can have a major impact on herd dynamics. In Fairfax county VA where firearm hunting is almost non-existent, Deer/human conflicts became significant through landscape damage and tick-borne disease. Developers developed all of the hilltops and the hillsides and stream valleys were donated back to the county to reduce the tax load. This provided amazing patchwork habitat with connectivity for deer. We started an organization called Suburban Whitetail Management of Northern Virginia that connected highly experienced archers with property owners experiencing landscape damage. We worked with the game commission to use kill permits to help bring the population back into balance.
In other areas, the resurgence of coyotes and other predators is having different impacts. On my farm, just a few counties away, we started by maximizing doe harvests to balance the population but with an influx of coyotes into the area we overcorrected and had to voluntarily limit our doe harvest last year. Every state and locality is different, but here in Virginia, the DGIF has been an outstanding resource developing a deer management plan that considers a very broad spectrum of interest holders view points and sets goals county by county.
I don't know enough about the game departments in other states to comment on their management practices but the department here has balanced well.
Thanks,
Jack
In other areas, the resurgence of coyotes and other predators is having different impacts. On my farm, just a few counties away, we started by maximizing doe harvests to balance the population but with an influx of coyotes into the area we overcorrected and had to voluntarily limit our doe harvest last year. Every state and locality is different, but here in Virginia, the DGIF has been an outstanding resource developing a deer management plan that considers a very broad spectrum of interest holders view points and sets goals county by county.
I don't know enough about the game departments in other states to comment on their management practices but the department here has balanced well.
Thanks,
Jack
buckvelvet
5 year old buck +
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
B
bat man
Guest
So how does one calculate the habitats capacity and plan a doe harvest? Do you calculate the habitat balance, or do you accept whatever the state agency tasked with managing hands down. QDMA accepts what the agency hands down in my experience. When left to the state they may decide that 8 deer per square mile is the proper number. 8 deer per square mile in a zone that has a biological CC of 80 to 100 deer per square mile. I have seen it happen. What would you do if that happened?
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
I think determining population goals for any species is a difficult thing to do. For example when deer begin to have a systemic impact on other habitat (browse line, loss of rare species, loss of habitat for small mammalian invertebrates), when deer/vehicle collisions, tick-borne disease, or property damage cause the general public to devalue deer as a resource, we have let populations get too high. If we don't control the population ourselves eventually nature will through disease, starvation, and predation. On the other hand, when a combination of disease, predator resurgence, and sport hunting cause once plentiful populations to become scarce and dip well below the Biological Carrying Capacity (BCC), it is time to adjust the management strategy to allow an increase in population.
The actual balance point is driven by both BCC and politics. Cultural carrying capacity and managing the expectations of both hunters, the general public, and business interests is clearly a political balance. Depending on your personal interests, you will thing a higher or lower goal is appropriate.
One thing to keep in mind is that as private land owners, our management goals may be different than the state management goals. I may be a hunter and manage for high deer numbers or perhaps for quality deer. My neighbor may own an orchard or vineyard and manage for zero deer. The state, in my opinion, should consider and solicit public input from everyone and balance their interests when putting together a long-term management plan.
If I didn't like the outcome or didn't feel my state was considering my interests and the interests of others like me, I would do my best to organize within the state and vote in more responsive politicians. I don't think I would blame national organizations for deciding not to dive into my states politics. I may look to an organization like QDMA for a broad position statement concerning the risks of driving populations too low from and the effects on QDM that I could use to help may my case within the state.
Can you imagine if a national organization like QDMA was able to have a significant influence on all state game agencies' policies? I don't think I would want to see QDM instituted nationally. I like the fact that each state can manage their wildlife as they see fit to a large degree. Personally I would like to see fewer national game related laws and more local responsibility.
That is my 2 cents for what it is worth. By the way, I don't know the conditions in your state, and I may be just as angry as you if I was in your shoes. I think my anger would be directed more locally and less at a national organization.
Thanks,
jack
The actual balance point is driven by both BCC and politics. Cultural carrying capacity and managing the expectations of both hunters, the general public, and business interests is clearly a political balance. Depending on your personal interests, you will thing a higher or lower goal is appropriate.
One thing to keep in mind is that as private land owners, our management goals may be different than the state management goals. I may be a hunter and manage for high deer numbers or perhaps for quality deer. My neighbor may own an orchard or vineyard and manage for zero deer. The state, in my opinion, should consider and solicit public input from everyone and balance their interests when putting together a long-term management plan.
If I didn't like the outcome or didn't feel my state was considering my interests and the interests of others like me, I would do my best to organize within the state and vote in more responsive politicians. I don't think I would blame national organizations for deciding not to dive into my states politics. I may look to an organization like QDMA for a broad position statement concerning the risks of driving populations too low from and the effects on QDM that I could use to help may my case within the state.
Can you imagine if a national organization like QDMA was able to have a significant influence on all state game agencies' policies? I don't think I would want to see QDM instituted nationally. I like the fact that each state can manage their wildlife as they see fit to a large degree. Personally I would like to see fewer national game related laws and more local responsibility.
That is my 2 cents for what it is worth. By the way, I don't know the conditions in your state, and I may be just as angry as you if I was in your shoes. I think my anger would be directed more locally and less at a national organization.
Thanks,
jack
B
bat man
Guest
I believe it was an absence of game related laws that wiped out wild game populations all across the united states. Deer buffalo pigeons etc. I would believe that a hunter based org like QDMA should help influence policy for the hunter.
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
You are absolutely right that market hunting that occurred before game departments were established in the states was responsible for some extinctions and hurt many wild game populations. They key is that they were established at the state, not national level. Each state has its own issues and needs.
As for organizations, I think folks just need to read their mission statements before developing expectations. If QDMA has "influencing policy for the hunter" in its mission statement, then they are failing it. If not, then you have an unrealistic expectation for the organization. It is like saying trout unlimited should influence policy for the hunter. That may be what you want, but not what the organization set as its mission. There are organizations with missions that are closer to what you want, and maybe that is where your expectations would be more reasonable.
There is no doubt that QDMA has a lot of faults, but we can't lay all of our problems at their doorstep. I'm not even saying that QDMA made the right decision in this case. I'm simply saying that I personally don't know enough about your state and its issues and what went on with QDMA and how and why they made their decision in this case to have a strong opinion on this one.
By the way, something similar is happening in my state with National forests. Folks were trying to get QDMA an the forum users to pressure our game department to tightening harvest restrictions there. When I looked at all the information, I came down on the side of supporting our game department in that case, at least for now.
Thanks,
jack
As for organizations, I think folks just need to read their mission statements before developing expectations. If QDMA has "influencing policy for the hunter" in its mission statement, then they are failing it. If not, then you have an unrealistic expectation for the organization. It is like saying trout unlimited should influence policy for the hunter. That may be what you want, but not what the organization set as its mission. There are organizations with missions that are closer to what you want, and maybe that is where your expectations would be more reasonable.
There is no doubt that QDMA has a lot of faults, but we can't lay all of our problems at their doorstep. I'm not even saying that QDMA made the right decision in this case. I'm simply saying that I personally don't know enough about your state and its issues and what went on with QDMA and how and why they made their decision in this case to have a strong opinion on this one.
By the way, something similar is happening in my state with National forests. Folks were trying to get QDMA an the forum users to pressure our game department to tightening harvest restrictions there. When I looked at all the information, I came down on the side of supporting our game department in that case, at least for now.
Thanks,
jack
kl9
5 year old buck +
Jack,
I think that QDMA's mission statement does include verbiage that would imply its willingness to support hunter groups at the state level involving state politics of deer management.
"The Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) is a non-profit conservation organization working to ensure the future of white-tailed deer, wildlife habitat and our hunting heritage. Since 1988, QDMA has worked to promote sustainable, high-quality deer populations, wildlife habitats and ethical hunting experiences through research, education, advocacy, and hunter recruitment. QDMA teaches deer hunters how to improve local deer populations, habitat and hunting experiences."
I think the term "advocacy" covers the aforementioned point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
I don't see that in your quote. I think advocacy refers to how they support their mission. It goes on to talk about "teaching deer hunters" which is a form of advocacy. In reference to deer populations, their stated objective is "high-quality". As I said, I think it would be reasonable to expect QDMA to make a broad statement about impacts on "high-quality deer population" of driving herd numbers too low.
Compare this to the mission statement of the Congressional Sportsman's Foundation: http://sportsmenslink.org/
There is an organization that has a political advocacy mission. I could see asking QDMA's research function to help provide supporting data for CSF who could then interact with your governor, but I don't see QDMA as having political intervention at a state by state level in their charter.
Thanks,
jack
Compare this to the mission statement of the Congressional Sportsman's Foundation: http://sportsmenslink.org/
There is an organization that has a political advocacy mission. I could see asking QDMA's research function to help provide supporting data for CSF who could then interact with your governor, but I don't see QDMA as having political intervention at a state by state level in their charter.
Thanks,
jack
kl9
5 year old buck +
I guess we'll agree to disagree. I think it is somewhat vague no matter how one interprets it. I see it as advocating (not specifically how) for the goal of "promote sustainable high-quality deer populations..." Exactly how they will advocate this goal is not mentioned, but it certainly leaves open the possibility of being involved with state politics IMO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
B
bat man
Guest
Dissapointment? Closer to disgust.
'Lets get through these 2 banquets and then we have a plan to get your density issues addressed I think you guys are really going to be proud of'
And the other local chapter believed. And mine was disbanded.
Then crickets.
The rhetorhic you tout is hollow and empty to a great many MN public/private land hunters who watched the herd disappear in many areas. The education and message you speak of were never uttered or brought to the area. Only a banquet.
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
And if that is the case, it is a legitimate complaint that they failed to achieve their education mission in your area.
buckvelvet
5 year old buck +
buckvelvet
5 year old buck +
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
Crimson n' Camo
5 year old buck +
Sounds like you owe the pot some money.....:)
B
bat man
Guest
Checks in the mail.
