Free: Contests & Raffles.
We haven't had doe permits in 340-336 gmu for years, the herd size have not increased from this, didn't the muckleshoots do a study a couple years back on the deer herd?
All Great Ideas ... DaveMonti Nailed It ... "Where's the Data?"
Well, that about sums up the single idea approach. Everyone has their ideas of what needs to be done. How many of these ideas are supported by data? As far as the "doe" question goes, how many doe (or antlerless) deer are taken each year in this state? In each unit? How do those number of "antlerless" compare to the total number of deer in the state or in the units where the antlerless deer are harvested?I don't have these answers. I do, however, know that any "solution" that actually works is supported by data and sound reasoning. While stopping the harvest of antlerless deer may SEEM like an intuitive solution to the problem of low deer numbers, does the data support that? Does someone want to pour effort into a perceived solution that may not be supported by data? Suppose there are 4000 deer in a unit, and each year, 50 antlerless deer are taken from that unit. Say that 40 of those antlerless deer are female with the rest being young antlerless bucks. Will saving 1% (40/4000) of the population each year is going to make a difference in deer numbers? Of those 40 female deer you save, how many survive the winter, predators, vehicles? If you assume that of the 4000 deer, 3000 of them are does (I have no idea if this is right) but in buck heavy harvest areas, I expect there are more bucks than does), you are saving 40 of 3000 female deer. What is the impact of an additional 1.3% of the doe population on the herd for the next year? 5 years? I have no idea of these numbers are anywhere NEAR the truth. I don't have a solution. I don't even know if there is a real problem as I've not looked up deer population trends for the past 20 years. I'm not "for" or "against" a ban on antlerless hunting. My point is that everyone has a "solution", and those solutions tend to be based on perception and not data. If you want to make an impact, present an argument to the governing body that has DATA associated with it, and real analysis that shows results. If you do not, you OR the governing body has NO idea how impactful your solution is. Now, I understand that REAL DATA is hard to come by, and it takes work, and most people have no idea of where to get the data, and if they did, it would probably be somewhat difficult to gather and compile, so guess what? It's too hard! to get the data. It's much easier to go with perception, which is highly emotional. So on and on we go, people throwing out emotional based solutions that are as varied as the personalities on this forum and no solutions get implemented because there is no data supporting how the solution may change the status quo. I know this idea is going to be met with hostility. Nobody want's to hear that their "perception" isn't necessarily valid, or enough "evidence" to base real changes on. And nobody want's to be faced with the task of collecting the data, if it even exists. So my observations will not go over well with anyone who has an emotional based "solution". Now, just remember, before you go on and tell me "Well, if you have all the answers, what does your data tell you?" I don't have the data. I have not decided to wade into this mess. I just spend most of my hunting time in other states. I don't profess to have the solutions or the data or the desire to do any of this. But if you are so motivated, take some advice and start with the data.
