As it seems that this topic is stagnant and ready to really begin the debate/dialog on actual ideas to help the deer populations and still maintain a high level of suitability for the hunters I will throw a few out there. I'm sure that after this is done you will all hate a part of me equally. And just in case you don't make it fully through this post, on account of how many words are in it, let me thank you now for your opinions.
Let's just cut right to the chase. Reducing the units to 30 instead of 5 was a start, but in reality they should have been reduced to something more like 70 or 80 and that's being conservative. If you are going to make the statement that you are managing tags based on buck to doe ratios then at least have the common decency to reduce the size of the area you are accounting for to a serviceable number! Examples - ANY of the LE or Premium LE units. They boast buck to doe ratios of 40 to 50 per 100 and 50 to 60 for the Premium LE units. Now this is based on the belief that there is something to the notion that does will produce more female offspring if the buck count is above a certain percentage, and nothing more. And while we are at it, why does every piece of land in the state have to be a part of the hunt boundaries? That brings me to another point (don't stop reading yet, this will really get people stirring).
If you legally own land that is not within a zoned city or non-firearm discharge ordinance then you can purchase a maximum of two tags per year for your land at the same price as a CWMU permit. These tags are registered to WHOMEVER YOU WANT TO at the time of purchase. Some people own an acre, some own a thousand. I DON'T CARE! If you own land and you want to hunt it every year then please do so. Some caveats here though. You cannot transfer/sell/party hunt your tags. You also cannot allow any other tag holders to hunt on your land, PERIOD. Let's be real about this some people have owned land forever, in some really prime hunting grounds, and they want to hunt it! Honestly it's not going to make a huge difference. As long as we are talking about limiting tags let me stay on that topic.
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PERMITS, PERIOD! Hunt success is 24% according to the 2010 report. Look at the success rate on the LE units alone, the average is 85%. Now I don't think that you have to limit tags by enough to see that high of a success rate, 65% would suffice, but I do think that the rate is low because the units are too big and there are a ton of hunters crammed in to small areas of these large units. If you reduce the area size and have a manageable number of animals you can then accurately manage the amount of hunters in that area and maintain your acceptable kill losses, oh and maintain your buck to doe ratios. But that's not enough.
If the unit has a habitable population below 75% of its DESIRED amount, THEN IT'S NOT OPEN FOR HUNTING regardless of ratio! And then the unit will only be issued enough tags to sustain a level greater than 70% of the desired population. There should also be some limiting factors per unit based on percentage of surviving fawns and a charted percentage of population growth of no less than 5% per year. This will both take into account the unique characteristics of that habitat and the predator issues surrounding it. Which bring me to my next point.
Attempt in some way to manage the predators and keep counts of them at the SAME TIME AS managing deer herd populations. This stuff isn't rocket science is it? Wildlife biologists have some pretty substantial evidence on how many of what species of predator will reduce the surrounding game (it's food) numbers by annually. And in my humble opinion, HUNT THEM UNTIL BOTH THEY AND THE DEER ARE MANAGED! Speaking of hunting, isn't that what we all really want to do?
Increase the amount of hunting days in the field, OH NO HE DIDN'T JUST SAY THAT, Oh yes he did. If you've responsibly issued tags based on manageable loss numbers then why not? Also, if you don't draw a tag, but still want to share in the experience of hunting annually BUY A CAMERA AND GO ANYWAY! Or maybe post on MM that you are a lonely white male in search of high adventure with copper, brass and gunpowder, but you regrettably didn't tag out this year so you are willing to mope along on someone's hunt just for the pleasure of putting a smile on their face. Not trying to put a guide out of work here, but it is true that many people get more satisfaction through helping others. There are a bunch of hunters, myself included, who never really learned the art of hunting and would relish the opportunity to!
Keep the CWMU's if they are willing. Landowner can't hunt it though. It's either his two tags or the state's managed tag number, sorry. Also, reduce the price to that of the general tags. Don't worry my next point will make up the difference in the money.
If you would like the opportunity to receive an extra bonus point every year until you've reached 10 points or more then listen up. (My ignorance will show through here, let me apologize in advance). If you put in for an LE unit AND a General tag you have the option to earn an extra bonus point for an extra fee. Three ways to do it, first if you want to earn an extra bonus point toward a General unit, but not have the annoying inconvenience of losing your LE preference points when you draw out then check the box on the left, and pay an extra $10. If you would like the opportunity to receive an extra bonus point for an LE unit AND a general unit, which will reset your points to zero if you draw out either, then check the box in the middle and pay an extra $20. And lastly if you would like to purchase that extra bonus point for an LE unit but not lose your total points towards the General then check the box on the right and pay an extra $100. That's right a hundred bucks, what's it worth to you? Some caveats here though, you can put in for the General hunt the year after you drew out your LE but you cannot put in for another LE hunt for 2 years. Who am I kidding though, if they adopted the 80 unit plan they would all be LE's (GASP).
Okay, so that last part was just silliness and it was intended. Please feel free to pick and prod and debate or just say intentionally rude and ignorant things. This is just the start of my idea list and I can think of many many more. The problem as I see it is everybody wants to implement ONE thing and call it the solution, when as I recall it takes five things to create a habitat, why wouldn't it take at least that to maintain the animals who live in it?
