# Deer Harvest Records



## Old Bart (Dec 23, 2014)

While stumbling across the DNR's harvest records for 2013-14. I noticed that to record said number, the WMA hunts are counted, as well as 2,500 random hunters are called and asked to give their honest harvest for the season. This equates to roughly 1 out of 100 hunters are polled. Then these numbers are calculated to incorporate the rest of the overall deer harvested. 

I'm bringing this up because of the public input meetings that will be coming up. If you feel this is an accurate way to gauge our overall deer population fine, but this seems like the easy way out to me. Our deer herd should be managed better and not off of the results of 2,500 random hunters.


----------



## RockyMountainBasser (Dec 23, 2014)

Agreed.  I can understand that there are a lot of counties in the state of Georgia and trying to manage the overall deer herd in each county would be a monumental task, but something has to be done about their management of the deer herds............the way they are doing it now is no where near the right way of doing it. 

Personally, I had to pass on the chance of feeding my family the other day because the day I hunted was a buck only day............and I was hunting in a county that has a high deer/car hit ratio..............and I honestly believe that it is crazy to have to pass up food for my family due to the lack of antlers. 

I hope to be able to attend the meetings and voice my opinion about these issues. I certainly hope that other hunters will do the same.


----------



## trhankinson (Dec 23, 2014)

I will be at the meeting on January 5th in Thomaston.


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 23, 2014)

RockyMountainBasser said:


> Agreed.  I can understand that there are a lot of counties in the state of Georgia and trying to manage the overall deer herd in each county would be a monumental task, but something has to be done about their management of the deer herds............the way they are doing it now is no where near the right way of doing it.
> 
> Personally, I had to pass on the chance of feeding my family the other day because the day I hunted was a buck only day............and I was hunting in a county that has a high deer/car hit ratio..............and I honestly believe that it is crazy to have to pass up food for my family due to the lack of antlers.
> 
> I hope to be able to attend the meetings and voice my opinion about these issues. I certainly hope that other hunters will do the same.



Exactly, why not use a tried and true method such as Call In tagging? Once an accurate deer herd is established we can further adjust the seasons and limits. That's my .02 I am interested in hearing what everyone else thinks about this. I was surprised to hear about the random polling though.. 
Here are the results from the past years from the DNR site..
13-14'- 453,952
12-13'- 385,410
11-12'- 411,481
10-11'- 449,850
09-10'- 398,668 

Notice the 68,542 gap between the past two years and the 51,182 gap from 2009-2011.. How can you set bag limits with such a flawed system?


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 23, 2014)

Old Bart said:


> While stumbling across the DNR's harvest records for 2013-14. I noticed that to record said number, the WMA hunts are counted, as well as 2,500 random hunters are called and asked to give their honest harvest for the season. This equates to roughly 1 out of 100 hunters are polled. Then these numbers are calculated to incorporate the rest of the overall deer harvested.
> 
> I'm bringing this up because of the public input meetings that will be coming up. If you feel this is an accurate way to gauge our overall deer population fine, but this seems like the easy way out to me. Our deer herd should be managed better and not off of the results of 2,500 random hunters.



That's how statistical sampling works, you could sample 100,000 hunters and the results would be the same with only slightly tighter confidence intervals.  This works great at the statewide and large regional level, but that sample size is not adequate for county level harvest estimates.  To gain that information, as well as harvest timing, we are moving towards a harvest reporting system for Georgia in the next couple of years.


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 23, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> That's how statistical sampling works, you could sample 100,000 hunters and the results would be the same with only slightly tighter confidence intervals.  This works great at the statewide and large regional level, but that sample size is not adequate for county level harvest estimates.  To gain that information, as well as harvest timing, we are moving towards a harvest reporting system for Georgia in the next couple of years.



I was hoping you would chime in Killmaster. If I may ask, what kind of harvest reporting system are y'all going to implement?


----------



## merc123 (Dec 23, 2014)

One folks will still complain about


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 23, 2014)

merc123 said:


> One folks will still complain about



Well to compare with Ohio and Kentucky:

Ohio
2009-10 = 261314
2010-11 = 239379
2011-12 = 219698
2012-13 = 218910
2013-14 = 191503
2014-15 = 164897 right now

Kentucky
04- 124,752
05- 112,462
06- 122,233
07- 113,436
08- 120,610
09- 114,585
'10- 110,376
'11- 119,663
'12- 131,395
'13- 144,409

As you can see, neither state has a gap anywhere near 50,000. Our deer harvest system is outdated and inaccurate. I hate to come down harshly on our DNR but something has to change, and I'm glad steps are being made into the right direction. I'm not paranoid but I'm close to it.


----------



## mguthrie (Dec 24, 2014)

Old Bart said:


> Well to compare with Ohio and Kentucky:
> 
> Ohio
> 2009-10 = 261314
> ...



Look at your numbers. On average the difference is nearly the same. As kill master said you could poll more hunters and come up with the same numbers. At a higher cost no doubt. A lot of suggestions I've read on this sight are to cost prohibitive to implement. Trigger control is the best management tool


----------



## merc123 (Dec 24, 2014)

Old Bart said:


> As you can see, neither state has a gap anywhere near 50,000. Our deer harvest system is outdated and inaccurate. I hate to come down harshly on our DNR but something has to change, and I'm glad steps are being made into the right direction. I'm not paranoid but I'm close to it.



I understand what you are saying.  I don't think getting 100% telephone-tag, statewide numbers will overall significantly increase the accuracy of the deer population estimates.  The accuracy of harvest records will increase but I don't think a 10% +/- deer harvest record changes the overall deer population that much.  That's only about 90k-120k deer or 2-3 deer/square mile (I think).

If that percentage was higher, say 30% I think it would be significant number.  I'm just guessing.


----------



## Kanook (Dec 24, 2014)

I have been trying to figure out a way to get a smartphone deer harvest app that could work. The biggest hurdles are, not everyone has a smartphone,  and phone reception sux sometimes. 

It could stop extra printed tags (you harvest a deer, you go to the app and tag it) and it could maybe make a better estimate of actual deer harvested.

Or maybe a text to tag. I harvest a deer and send DNR a text, my reply is proof of harvest. If I send a text in a poor reception area, my phone holds the text till it gets reception and then sends it.

I know my idea is flawed, but it could/would work for those who would use it.


----------



## PappyHoel (Dec 24, 2014)

Everything mentioned will require money to implement.  People complain about $5 for a quota hunt.  Double the amount for license fees and maybe some enforcement could be done.  However no one wants to pay.


----------



## tcoker (Dec 24, 2014)

merc123 said:


> I understand what you are saying.  I don't think getting 100% telephone-tag, statewide numbers will overall significantly increase the accuracy of the deer population estimates.  The accuracy of harvest records will increase but I don't think a 10% +/- deer harvest record changes the overall deer population that much.  That's only about 90k-120k deer or 2-3 deer/square mile (I think).
> 
> If that percentage was higher, say 30% I think it would be significant number.  I'm just guessing.



I think your right in your assumption. Or I agree with your assumption anyway. It would the be very significant increase in accuracy.


----------



## mguthrie (Dec 24, 2014)

PappyHoel said:


> Everything mentioned will require money to implement.  People complain about $5 for a quota hunt.  Double the amount for license fees and maybe some enforcement could be done.  However no one wants to pay.



This^^^


----------



## bluemarlin (Dec 24, 2014)

No matter what kind of new and improved system, too many variables.. Hard to get a accurate number.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 24, 2014)

Old Bart said:


> Well to compare with Ohio and Kentucky:
> 
> Ohio
> 2009-10 = 261314
> ...



That's not an apples to apples comparison.  If you look at the percent deviation from the average, you'll find those states very similar to Georgia.  Georgia is a bigger state with more deer and more hunters.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 24, 2014)

Old Bart said:


> I was hoping you would chime in Killmaster. If I may ask, what kind of harvest reporting system are y'all going to implement?



Mandatory harvest reporting via telephone, smart phone app, or internet within a specified time period of harvest (probably 24 hours).  The harvest record requiring you to write down the kill before moving the carcass will stay in place, but we'll add a place for the confirmation number from reporting it.  

The harvest totals will always be and estimate, in this case a minimum reported number.  We'll continue the telephone survey, which is a scientifically defensible approach.  

You could also get very accurate county-level harvest estimates from telephone surveys, but it would require a sample size of 300 hunters from each county.  Based on the current costs for our survey, that would equate to $1 million annually.  The harvest reporting system is substantially more economical for obtaining the finer scale data like county level harvest.

Nearly all states use surveys, harvest reporting, or a combination of the two.  There is no true census or deer harvest or populations, nor is one really necessary for managing deer.  Regardless of the method, or the accuracy of the method, the precision and trends are the key to deer management.  The trends will hold true if the method is standard from year to year and precise.


----------



## Kanook (Dec 24, 2014)

How about a point system, as in I call/app/website, my harvest and I get a point. After so many points I get to use my points as I choose, discount in license, no WMA fee, no $5 quota fee, ect.

The more points, the better the choice of options.

No need to spend the $1 million on call surveys, the hunters will call/app/website the info. Yes, some money will not be received if discounts are given, but will it add up to the $1 million not spent?

So far this year it has cost my wife and I $600 for licenses to hunt our own land and to harvest 1 deer. It is money we chose to spend, so adding a way we could get a discount by getting a better number of the harvest seems like a win win.

Again, all systems have flaws, just an idea.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 24, 2014)

Kanook said:


> How about a point system, as in I call/app/website, my harvest and I get a point. After so many points I get to use my points as I choose, discount in license, no WMA fee, no $5 quota fee, ect.
> 
> The more points, the better the choice of options.
> 
> ...



We're not spending $1 million on it, I was just saying what it would cost to survey at the county level.  

Your idea is good, but providing incentives will bias the results.  People will be reporting deer they didn't kill for the perks.


----------



## Resica (Dec 24, 2014)

I don't think rewarding someone for something they should do anyway(report a harvest) is a good idea. How about requiring reporting regardless of a kill in order to be able to purchase a hunting license the following year?

    I'm required to report the outcome of a second spring turkey tag regardless of whether I shoot a bird or not.


----------



## The mtn man (Dec 24, 2014)

http://www.ncwildlife.org/Hunting/SeasonsLimits/HarvestStatistics.aspx.  Here is a link to some of the work that NC does, you should find a survey, then you should find an actual county by county harvest report.


----------



## The mtn man (Dec 24, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> Mandatory harvest reporting via telephone, smart phone app, or internet within a specified time period of harvest (probably 24 hours).  The harvest record requiring you to write down the kill before moving the carcass will stay in place, but we'll add a place for the confirmation number from reporting it.
> 
> The harvest totals will always be and estimate, in this case a minimum reported number.  We'll continue the telephone survey, which is a scientifically defensible approach.
> 
> ...



This is basically the way NC does it, it's very accurate except for the folks that get away without reporting, nothing can be done about that except law enforcement.


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 24, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> Mandatory harvest reporting via telephone, smart phone app, or internet within a specified time period of harvest (probably 24 hours).  The harvest record requiring you to write down the kill before moving the carcass will stay in place, but we'll add a place for the confirmation number from reporting it.
> 
> The harvest totals will always be and estimate, in this case a minimum reported number.  We'll continue the telephone survey, which is a scientifically defensible approach.
> 
> ...



What I was getting at comparing to Ohio & Kentucky was the gap between the years was reasonably close. Even Iowa had an entire chart on deer hit by vehicles and took them into account for the overall population; it was impressive to see the length in which they monitor their deer population. 

As for the deer harvest system, I'm glad y'all have motioned towards the call-in system. Are you guys implementing the physical tags as well? 
My main concern about the phone polls is you're relying on the hunter polled for their honesty, nobody is going to say "I shot 3 bucks". Besides that I agree, the phone polling is a good was to gauge deer harvest.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 24, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> Your idea is good, but providing incentives will bias the results.  People will be reporting deer they didn't kill for the perks.




Surely not


T


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 24, 2014)

Old Bart said:


> What I was getting at comparing to Ohio & Kentucky was the gap between the years was reasonably close. Even Iowa had an entire chart on deer hit by vehicles and took them into account for the overall population; it was impressive to see the length in which they monitor their deer population.
> 
> As for the deer harvest system, I'm glad y'all have motioned towards the call-in system. Are you guys implementing the physical tags as well?
> My main concern about the phone polls is you're relying on the hunter polled for their honesty, nobody is going to say "I shot 3 bucks". Besides that I agree, the phone polling is a good was to gauge deer harvest.



The gap between years, as a percentage of total harvest, was very similar among Ohio, Kentucky, and Georgia.  Georgia having bigger gaps between years is a function of the number of deer killed, not variation in how estimates are derived.

Georgia does way more monitoring and statistical analysis than most folks realize, we just don't do a good job advertising it.  That's why I opened up the deer database to the public and am working on putting all of our annual reports on the website.

The harvest reporting system will not use physical tags, the paper deer harvest record will still be used.  If someone kills 3 bucks, they're not going to report it through a survey or telecheck or any other manner.  The only way to assess illegal harvest is to conduct a mortality study with radio-collared deer.  Illegal harvest, deer-vehicle collisions, and disease mortality all fall within an annual 20% non-harvest mortality rate we assume each year.


----------



## Tideup (Dec 24, 2014)

mguthrie said:


> Look at your numbers. On average the difference is nearly the same. As kill master said you could poll more hunters and come up with the same numbers. At a higher cost no doubt. A lot of suggestions I've read on this sight are to cost prohibitive to implement. Trigger control is the best management tool


X 2 on the trigger control. Our club has a little over 7000 acres and there are 25 of us. We have a 3 doe and the state regs on bucks. I can't remember when any member has killed all 5 and we have plenty of deer.
The habitat south Ga. pine woods.


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 24, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> The gap between years, as a percentage of total harvest, was very similar among Ohio, Kentucky, and Georgia.  Georgia having bigger gaps between years is a function of the number of deer killed, not variation in how estimates are derived.
> 
> Georgia does way more monitoring and statistical analysis than most folks realize, we just don't do a good job advertising it.  That's why I opened up the deer database to the public and am working on putting all of our annual reports on the website.
> 
> The harvest reporting system will not use physical tags, the paper deer harvest record will still be used.  If someone kills 3 bucks, they're not going to report it through a survey or telecheck or any other manner.  The only way to assess illegal harvest is to conduct a mortality study with radio-collared deer.  Illegal harvest, deer-vehicle collisions, and disease mortality all fall within an annual 20% non-harvest mortality rate we assume each year.



I still don't fully understand how 65,000 more deer can be killed one year versus the other. That is my biggest concern, even Texas had a reasonably tight groupings between the years. 

But what I've been getting at is, how do y'all determine the seasons duration and bag limits? Do y'all go off of the general hunters consensus? 

I understand a poacher will always be a poacher, I was under the impression that it would be harder to fake a tag than printing off a second deer harvest log; something that I've heard people do in the past. Then again, this is an assumption.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Dec 24, 2014)

Old Bart said:


> I still don't fully understand how 65,000 more deer can be killed one year versus the other.



That is because we kill a lot more deer in GA than in either KY or OH which you gave as comparisons.  

That is actually about a 15% change for GA and 14% for OH and 10% for KY...not really all that different or hard to understand.  Could be weather related or fawn recruitment was better one year to the next or any number of other factors but having looked at the way GA estimates the numbers I feel that those are pretty darn close numbers overall.  

Also as Charlie pointed out earlier, the actual numbers aren't what is important but rather the trends which will be a very consistent finding as long as they use the same method year after year to get those numbers.  Your concern with accuracy based on honesty of those polled would only be valid assuming folks are more honest one year than another...yeah right.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of a reporting system that may give a more accurate number of actual kills but I have no problems with the accuracy of the TRENDS that the current system results show.  A timely reporting system as suggested by Charlie should give good biological data about when and where the deer are being killed from one county or region to the next and that info would have to be good for them to have.  

I suspect a good reporting system will show that the current system was already doing a good job with accuracy.


----------



## T-N-T (Dec 24, 2014)

Gathering the numbers of how many deer are actually killed is a guess at best.  An educated guess,  but a guess nonetheless.  Even if you instigate a plastic tag that needs to be attached to the animal, if a guy doesnt want to tag or report his deer, he wont.
Some systems might be better than others, but some will only work if the hunters actually do them.
I am not trying to argue here, just stating the facts.  If the sustem becomes too complicated or simply more than what people "Want" to do, they aint going to do it.


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 24, 2014)

I love the new idea. Even though it was adopted from Maryland.  In order to be effective in Georgia a larger Law Enforcement force is needed.


----------



## tonyrittenhouse (Dec 24, 2014)

*tags*

We do not have enough law enforcement in Georgia for any system to work. When you have one warden for every 3 counties there is no way anything can be enforced. Then when a wma has a hunt they pull the game wardens from the surrounding counties to help run the wma hunt and that leaves even more counties with out any law enforcement. So, I feel no system will work without enforcement to back it up.


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 24, 2014)

cowhornedspike said:


> That is because we kill a lot more deer in GA than in either KY or OH which you gave as comparisons.
> 
> That is actually about a 15% change for GA and 14% for OH and 10% for KY...not really all that different or hard to understand.  Could be weather related or fawn recruitment was better one year to the next or any number of other factors but having looked at the way GA estimates the numbers I feel that those are pretty darn close numbers overall.
> 
> ...



Thanks for putting things into perspective, it was a lot for me to swallow noticing a 68k swing in kills from one year to the next. Hopefully the new reporting system along with a potential increase in Wardens will help better manage our deer herds. I agree the Wardens are fighting an uphill battle as they're both underfunded and understaffed. Hopefully more people would be inclined in paying the rumored $5 Quota hunt fee to help give our DNR the finances they desperately need.


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 24, 2014)

A concept that would work for the Georgia DNR  is control what you own.  Charge fees for quota/sign in hunts on Wma's.  Also, charge a fee to hunt on national forest land.  I find it funny Killmaster only provides data from Wma hunts.  But yet he manages the entire states deer herd.  Sometimes you just have to shake your head.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 25, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> A concept that would work for the Georgia DNR  is control what you own.  Charge fees for quota/sign in hunts on Wma's.  Also, charge a fee to hunt on national forest land.  I find it funny Killmaster only provides data from Wma hunts.  But yet he manages the entire states deer herd.  Sometimes you just have to shake your head.



I've provided data for both public and private lands.  I have no idea what you're referring to.


----------



## mtr3333 (Dec 25, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> I've provided data for both public and private lands.  I have no idea what you're referring to.



Not too off subject, but how long do you expect it to take before either sex changes this season will show measurable results in the future?


----------



## Ben Athens (Dec 25, 2014)

I dont think anything will change utill the Board of Natural Resources changes.  They are the ones who have the final say in setting the bag limits as I understand it. It would be nice to have some hunters on the board. The last time the deer plan was revised there was talk of no bag limit on deer but the board set it at its current limit of 12.

Comparing Ga to other states is difficult at best. We simply have more people in this state than other states do. 

Ben.


----------



## The Longhunter (Dec 25, 2014)

Ben Athens said:


> It would be nice to have some hunters on the board. The last time the deer plan was revised there was talk of no bag limit on deer but the board set it at its current limit of 12.
> 
> Ben.



The state legislature sets the maximum bag limits.

Each member of the legislature is a bona fide wild life biologist.


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 25, 2014)

Killmaster,

For WMAs you have provided accurate data.  For the rest of the state you provided a guess.  Nothing accurate about guessing.  Anyone can do it.


----------



## merc123 (Dec 25, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> Killmaster,
> 
> For WMAs you have provided accurate data.  For the rest of the state you provided a guess.  Nothing accurate about guessing.  Anyone can do it.



I guess you don't understand phone surveys and statistical analysis. That's just a guess though.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Dec 25, 2014)

merc123 said:


> I guess you don't understand phone surveys and statistical analysis. That's just a guess though.


----------



## merc123 (Dec 25, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> A concept that would work for the Georgia DNR  is control what you own.  Charge fees for quota/sign in hunts on Wma's.  Also, charge a fee to hunt on national forest land.  I find it funny Killmaster only provides data from Wma hunts.  But yet he manages the entire states deer herd.  Sometimes you just have to shake your head.



Excellent concept!  They should do just this. I think they could sell a seasonal license to hunt national forest Lands. Then For WMA's they could sell like a stamp or something to go on the seasonal license. Sometimes you just have to shake your head that they didn't think of all this first!


----------



## redka (Dec 25, 2014)

C.Killmaster, not to get off topic....from reading your posts I suppose you work for the DNR.  I want to thank you for taking time to communicate with us on this forum.  Pretty sure it's not required in your job description.  Thank you.
Looking forward to your posts.


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 26, 2014)

Thank you Killmaster for taking your time out, even on Christmas Day, to answer our questions. I'm proud to see our DNR agents going above and beyond the call of duty, Happy New Year I wish you the best.


----------



## orangesmoke20 (Dec 26, 2014)

merc123 said:


> Excellent concept!  They should do just this. I think they could sell a seasonal license to hunt national forest Lands. Then For WMA's they could sell like a stamp or something to go on the seasonal license. Sometimes you just have to shake your head that they didn't think of all this first!



 reading my mind, that's good stuff


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 26, 2014)

orangesmoke20 said:


> reading my mind, that's good stuff



Plus charge extra for quota hunts, perhaps $5 would do.....?


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 26, 2014)

What is to be understood about a phone survey?  Nothing!  I guess I missed the fact that they called every hunter in the state and received an accurate count.  Calling a percentage of the hunters is a joke and guess at best.  I want to know what was killed!  I would also like to see the harvest broke down by county.  Accurate data is provided from WMAs.  Why not the rest of the property?  To include what was killed on National Forest land.  Also, you buy a National Forest stamp just like a WMA stamp.  Nothing seasonal about it.  As far as quota hunts you pay five dollars for every hunt you apply to and ten dollars if you are selected.  This state is so far behind others when it comes to deer management and charging fees to do it.  No accurate data to determine what was harvested and everyone killing to many does. You have an agency short on money and looking for ideas to satisfy hunters and everyone wants the same status quo.  Now you can shake your head.


----------



## The mtn man (Dec 26, 2014)

As I said before, every hunter in NC , if they report their kill, like the law says, gives the state a 100 percent accurate count of every deer, turkey, and bear killed in the state, at the end of every season NC gives an accurate count, county by county, also for each county, the amount killed on public land , private land, if it was killed with gun, bow, muzzle loader , or crossbow, each category is itemized. It is very informative, we can see every year, how conditions that year effect harvests, we can tell if population is growing or declining, I'm proud to say our population is steadily growing, on private land areas, not only have I suspected it, the annual report from the state for my county proves it, also there are no additional fees for this, I don't know why GA can't do this, of course it only works perfectly if everyone reports there kills.


----------



## merc123 (Dec 26, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> What is to be understood about a phone survey?  Nothing!  I guess I missed the fact that they called every hunter in the state and received an accurate count.  Calling a percentage of the hunters is a joke and guess at best.  I want to know what was killed!  I would also like to see the harvest broke down by county.  Accurate data is provided from WMAs.  Why not the rest of the property?  To include what was killed on National Forest land.  Also, you buy a National Forest stamp just like a WMA stamp.  Nothing seasonal about it.  As far as quota hunts you pay five dollars for every hunt you apply to and ten dollars if you are selected.  This state is so far behind others when it comes to deer management and charging fees to do it.  No accurate data to determine what was harvested and everyone killing to many does. You have an agency short on money and looking for ideas to satisfy hunters and everyone wants the same status quo.  Now you can shake your head.



Did you attend any of the DNR open meetings?


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 27, 2014)

Everyone of them.  Nothing changes. The DNR has a biologist who lives in his little world and his superiors allow it.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Dec 27, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> Everyone of them.  Nothing changes. The DNR has a biologist who lives in his little world and his superiors allow it.



Since you clearly know more about deer biology than he does, looks like you should apply for the position and then show us all how a real man does it.  (had to use facepalm smiley because there isn't one that says what I really feel about your opinion.)


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 27, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> Everyone of them.  Nothing changes. The DNR has a biologist who lives in his little world and his superiors allow it.



You seem to be under the impression that the biologist makes all those decisions.  You say nothing changes, yet either-sex days have been adjusted, the zone line is going away, a harvest reporting system is in the works, a deer management assistance program proposal is being developed, a new rut map was developed, and all the raw deer data is available to the public.

Most any hunter, given the same information, education, and experience, would make the same recommendations that I've made.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 27, 2014)

mtr3333 said:


> Not too off subject, but how long do you expect it to take before either sex changes this season will show measurable results in the future?



The current strategy may not, so we may have to take a different approach.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 27, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> Killmaster,
> 
> For WMAs you have provided accurate data.  For the rest of the state you provided a guess.  Nothing accurate about guessing.  Anyone can do it.



I didn't invent statistics, I just use them in a manner they are proven to work.


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 27, 2014)

First off the position isn't open.  I have no idea what manhood has to do with it?  I have had the opportunity live and hunt in many states.  About time Georgia catches up.  I come from a family who works for several different states DNRs and know things can get better with change and proper management.  My opinion.  You just sit back and accept the old Georgia status quo.  Seems that is what you like best?  By the way you will not be disappointed under the current Biologist.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 27, 2014)

redka said:


> C.Killmaster, not to get off topic....from reading your posts I suppose you work for the DNR.  I want to thank you for taking time to communicate with us on this forum.  Pretty sure it's not required in your job description.  Thank you.
> Looking forward to your posts.





Old Bart said:


> Thank you Killmaster for taking your time out, even on Christmas Day, to answer our questions. I'm proud to see our DNR agents going above and beyond the call of duty, Happy New Year I wish you the best.



Thanks guys, same to you.  I certainly spend way more time on here than my wife would prefer.  Like most in this field, it's more of a way of life than a job or career so the clock never really stops.  I've always viewed this forum as a way to gauge what folks might be upset about and to provide information.


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 27, 2014)

Killmaster, I have one last question for you. Is it the State Legislature that sets the bag limits? If so, how do they determine the bag limit? 
I feel like 10 does per hunter is overkill even for Georgia, hopefully this can be amended as well.


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 27, 2014)

What has been done to determine an accurate annual hunter harvest?  Have you ever thought of using doe tags issued on a county basis to not only generate revenue for your agency, but help to determine how many should be killed?  How many deer are killed in each county?  How many need to be killed in each county to maintain a sustainable heard?  How many deer are killed on National Forest Land?  Extending the season without controlling harvest of antlerless deer and not knowing what you have in the first place is a disaster.  Statistical guesses are flawed and only support what the user wanted to see.  I have no idea why you use them?


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Dec 27, 2014)

They told us not to worry about coyotes yet they are now proven the largest cause of fawn mortality. They tell us less either sex days is the best way to reduce the doe harvest now they admit it probably wont. Yall excuse me if I have lost faith in DNR capability to manage the resource.


----------



## merc123 (Dec 27, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> Everyone of them.  Nothing changes. The DNR has a biologist who lives in his little world and his superiors allow it.



Then why do/did you continue to go to the meetings?  I would have stopped after the second one. Definition of insanity is doing the same thing over expecting different results.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 28, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> What has been done to determine an accurate annual hunter harvest?  Have you ever thought of using doe tags issued on a county basis to not only generate revenue for your agency, but help to determine how many should be killed?  How many deer are killed in each county?  How many need to be killed in each county to maintain a sustainable heard?  How many deer are killed on National Forest Land?  Extending the season without controlling harvest of antlerless deer and not knowing what you have in the first place is a disaster.  Statistical guesses are flawed and only support what the user wanted to see.  I have no idea why you use them?



I'm not going to argue with you on the validity of statistical surveys, it's obvious that you're completely closed-minded on the subject.  We use those surveys to estimate statewide and large regional harvest, they aren't designed for county level harvest.  That is one of the reasons we are developing a mandatory harvest reporting system.  It would seem we are in agreement on that.  With that system, we'll have minimum reported harvest estimates by county, wma, and national forest lands.  We'll continue to run the survey along with the reporting system and I'm willing to bet the survey estimates will show a higher harvest at the statewide and regional level than the harvest reporting system.  This has been shown in plenty of states that use both methods, usually on the order of 20 to 30%.

Either way, it will always be an estimate because there is no way to have 100% compliance.  If surveys show 20% more harvest than the reporting system, which would you base your management off of?


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 28, 2014)

HOGDOG76 said:


> They told us not to worry about coyotes yet they are now proven the largest cause of fawn mortality. They tell us less either sex days is the best way to reduce the doe harvest now they admit it probably wont. Yall excuse me if I have lost faith in DNR capability to manage the resource.



That's because coyotes weren't a significant mortality factor for fawns until the early 2000's.  You were told what the science had shown at the time.  Reducing either-sex days will reduce doe harvest, but they may have to be scheduled differently to accomplish the intended goal.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 28, 2014)

Old Bart said:


> Killmaster, I have one last question for you. Is it the State Legislature that sets the bag limits? If so, how do they determine the bag limit?
> I feel like 10 does per hunter is overkill even for Georgia, hopefully this can be amended as well.



There really isn't a specific method or formula for setting it.  The bag limit was controlled by DNR regulation, within a legal framework, until the last increase.  That increase in the legal framework also removed the regulatory authority of DNR over the bag limit.  One of the stated actions in the new deer plan is to work with the General Assembly to determine the best method for setting the bag limit.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 28, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> What has been done to determine an accurate annual hunter harvest?  Have you ever thought of using doe tags issued on a county basis to not only generate revenue for your agency, but help to determine how many should be killed?  How many deer are killed in each county?  How many need to be killed in each county to maintain a sustainable heard?  How many deer are killed on National Forest Land?  Extending the season without controlling harvest of antlerless deer and not knowing what you have in the first place is a disaster.  Statistical guesses are flawed and only support what the user wanted to see.  I have no idea why you use them?




There are not funds to collect all the data you propose to gather. How do you propose to fund it. 

IMO The average hunter is NOT going to comply with all that data collection no matter what is put in place.


----------



## turkeyed (Dec 28, 2014)

If a reduction in doe harvest is the goal, and I completely agree it should be in most areas.  Why not just reduce the number of doe tags a hunters has.  I for one hunt when I can but mostly when my son, 9 year old, can.  Now when doe does are not in it tough to get him to keep going.  If the goal of the DNR is to promote youth in the outdoors or even adults for that matter why does it matter when the does are harvested?  Just simply reduce the number of tags allotted for each hunter.  I know what your thinking, the tagging system is a joke.  I completely agree!  Worst  system I've ever seen in any state.  However I hear the tagging system Killmaster alluded to in a previous post is a tele-check system similar to the system used in Kentucky and many other mid-western states.  If a hunter is caught abusing the system and not tele-checking properly, take the deer and issue a citation.  Some hunters are very limited in the time they get to hunt.  I for one will not shoot does until after the rut once rifle season starts.


----------



## GameMgr270 (Dec 28, 2014)

Taking a sample poll of 1000 only works if the whole sum are a constant and the 1000 polled provide a true representation of the whole population which in this case it clearly does not. You end up only getting a polling from half of your population type and not the other. This is such a flawed method when applied to GA hunting harvest and is only used because it would be too expensive (or more than they are willing to spend on hunting in GA) to setup a proper counting method. 

There is an elephant in the room that no one wants to take on and many of you on here know what I'm talking about. It's the deer that get killed every season, before the season, during, and after by the "locals" who never buy a license, never join a club, never take polls and take as many or as few as they please because that's what they've always done.  Many of you know them.  It's what their grandad did and "it's just something you do in the south". There are so many hundreds of farms and homes that back up to woods, clubs, private land, public land where deer are killed without anyone knowing each year.  Been going on for years.  Every "farmer" or local I know has a pile of corn "behind the house" that they hunt on every year and rely on for their meat. "Licenses are for out of towners". "I got my license when I was born here"
On top of this you have the local poachers, which, by the way every small town in GA has one. The GWO busted one local poaching our land and others. Had 8 bucks in his truck. 1 was a 10pt I was hunting. No this is not made up. Hard to believe he would be that stupid but the down low word was that he road around town bragging. Point is even if me and my neighboring hunters which are your prototypical hunters, only took 6-8 deer between 6 of us, and we get polled and show low harvest, it isn't even close to the true number of deer harvested. This is the same everywhere in GA.
Then on top of all this, the GWO's know it goes on but are stretched way too thin to deal with it. It would be like writing a ticket for everyone going over the speed limit. 
 All of this will continue until GA takes its wildlife more seriously like the Midwestern states and add more wildlife officers instead of reducing them, add an accountability system instead of half-@$$ing it and invest in this resource more. Other states take their hunting very serious. Why can't Georgia?

As for the harvest data... it only tells part of the story.


----------



## mtr3333 (Dec 28, 2014)

GameMgr270 said:


> Taking a sample poll of 1000 only works if the whole sum are a constant and the 1000 polled provide a true representation of the whole population which in this case it clearly does not. You end up only getting a polling from half of your population type and not the other. This is such a flawed method when applied to GA hunting harvest and is only used because it would be too expensive (or more than they are willing to spend on hunting in GA) to setup a proper counting method.
> 
> There is an elephant in the room that no one wants to take on and many of you on here know what I'm talking about. It's the deer that get killed every season, before the season, during, and after by the "locals" who never buy a license, never join a club, never take polls and take as many or as few as they please because that's what they've always done.  Many of you know them.  It's what their grandad did and "it's just something you do in the south". There are so many hundreds of farms and homes that back up to woods, clubs, private land, public land where deer are killed without anyone knowing each year.  Been going on for years.  Every "farmer" or local I know has a pile of corn "behind the house" that they hunt on every year and rely on for their meat. "Licenses are for out of towners". "I got my license when I was born here"
> On top of this you have the local poachers, which, by the way every small town in GA has one. The GWO busted one local poaching our land and others. Had 8 bucks in his truck. 1 was a 10pt I was hunting. No this is not made up. Hard to believe he would be that stupid but the down low word was that he road around town bragging. Point is even if me and my neighboring hunters which are your prototypical hunters, only took 6-8 deer between 6 of us, and we get polled and show low harvest, it isn't even close to the true number of deer harvested. This is the same everywhere in GA.
> ...



The rest of the story is baiting and coyotes.


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 28, 2014)

turkeyed said:


> If a reduction in doe harvest is the goal, and I completely agree it should be in most areas.  Why not just reduce the number of doe tags a hunters has.  I for one hunt when I can but mostly when my son, 9 year old, can.  Now when doe does are not in it tough to get him to keep going.  If the goal of the DNR is to promote youth in the outdoors or even adults for that matter why does it matter when the does are harvested?  Just simply reduce the number of tags allotted for each hunter.  I know what your thinking, the tagging system is a joke.  I completely agree!  Worst  system I've ever seen in any state.  However I hear the tagging system Killmaster alluded to in a previous post is a tele-check system similar to the system used in Kentucky and many other mid-western states.  If a hunter is caught abusing the system and not tele-checking properly, take the deer and issue a citation.  Some hunters are very limited in the time they get to hunt.  I for one will not shoot does until after the rut once rifle season starts.



The DNR no longer has control over the bag limits, as Killmaster just stated. The real problem is The General Assembly allowing such liberal bag limits, along with the "locals" who hunt year round. It's an uphill battle to protect our deer herds.


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 28, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> There really isn't a specific method or formula for setting it.  The bag limit was controlled by DNR regulation, within a legal framework, until the last increase.  That increase in the legal framework also removed the regulatory authority of DNR over the bag limit.  One of the stated actions in the new deer plan is to work with the General Assembly to determine the best method for setting the bag limit.



So what I'm understanding is, the DNR can suggest bag limits, but it's up to the General Assembly for the final decision. 

Is there anyone I can email to express my feelings to about this? I understand why the State should be involved, but not to the extents that they are.


----------



## mtr3333 (Dec 28, 2014)

mtr3333 said:


> The rest of the story is baiting and coyotes.





Old Bart said:


> The DNR no longer has control over the bag limits, as Killmaster just stated. The real problem is The General Assembly allowing such liberal bag limits, along with the "locals" who hunt year round. It's an uphill battle to protect our deer herds.



No one shoots the limit of any statistical significance. Therefore, bag limit will have zero impact on population control. Poaching is not the problem either. See above.


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 28, 2014)

GameMgr270 said:


> Taking a sample poll of 1000 only works if the whole sum are a constant and the 1000 polled provide a true representation of the whole population which in this case it clearly does not. You end up only getting a polling from half of your population type and not the other. This is such a flawed method when applied to GA hunting harvest and is only used because it would be too expensive (or more than they are willing to spend on hunting in GA) to setup a proper counting method.
> 
> There is an elephant in the room that no one wants to take on and many of you on here know what I'm talking about. It's the deer that get killed every season, before the season, during, and after by the "locals" who never buy a license, never join a club, never take polls and take as many or as few as they please because that's what they've always done.  Many of you know them.  It's what their grandad did and "it's just something you do in the south". There are so many hundreds of farms and homes that back up to woods, clubs, private land, public land where deer are killed without anyone knowing each year.  Been going on for years.  Every "farmer" or local I know has a pile of corn "behind the house" that they hunt on every year and rely on for their meat. "Licenses are for out of towners". "I got my license when I was born here"
> On top of this you have the local poachers, which, by the way every small town in GA has one. The GWO busted one local poaching our land and others. Had 8 bucks in his truck. 1 was a 10pt I was hunting. No this is not made up. Hard to believe he would be that stupid but the down low word was that he road around town bragging. Point is even if me and my neighboring hunters which are your prototypical hunters, only took 6-8 deer between 6 of us, and we get polled and show low harvest, it isn't even close to the true number of deer harvested. This is the same everywhere in GA.
> ...



Very well said. It's honestly out of our DNR's control, they are understaffed and underfunded. They're doing their best but the State really gives them nothing and expects everything. Until our DNR get the funds they need to hire more Wardens, the "Good Ol' Boys" will continue to reap havoc on the deer herd. A pack of yotes is nothing to a 30-06 and a 6 pack....


----------



## cowhornedspike (Dec 28, 2014)

GameMgr270 said:


> Taking a sample poll of 1000 only works if the whole sum are a constant and the 1000 polled provide a true representation of the whole population which in this case it clearly does not.



So I can assume that you know each of these 1000 who are polled and therefore know they aren't a true representation of the hunters in GA...wow, I'm impressed.  I don't think I even know that many hunters, and am not sure I know any who gets polled.



GameMgr270 said:


> There is an elephant in the room that no one wants to take on and many of you on here know what I'm talking about. It's the deer that get killed every season, before the season, during, and after by the "locals" who never buy a license, never join a club, never take polls and take as many or as few as they please because that's what they've always done.  Many of you know them.  It's what their grandad did and "it's just something you do in the south". There are so many hundreds of farms and homes that back up to woods, clubs, private land, public land where deer are killed without anyone knowing each year.  Been going on for years.  Every "farmer" or local I know has a pile of corn "behind the house" that they hunt on every year and rely on for their meat. "Licenses are for out of towners". "I got my license when I was born here"
> On top of this you have the local poachers, which, by the way every small town in GA has one. The GWO busted one local poaching our land and others. Had 8 bucks in his truck. 1 was a 10pt I was hunting. No this is not made up. Hard to believe he would be that stupid but the down low word was that he road around town bragging. Point is even if me and my neighboring hunters which are your prototypical hunters, only took 6-8 deer between 6 of us, and we get polled and show low harvest, it isn't even close to the true number of deer harvested. This is the same everywhere in GA.



What system do you propose that will get all these mentioned above to report all those kills or to stop doing it altogether so a survey/tag/polling system can be more accurate??



GameMgr270 said:


> Then on top of all this, the GWO's know it goes on but are stretched way too thin to deal with it. It would be like writing a ticket for everyone going over the speed limit.




You say they know it but yet you seem to assume that they don't take any of that into account in their harvest and population figures...really?



GameMgr270 said:


> All of this will continue until GA takes its wildlife more seriously like the Midwestern states and add more wildlife officers instead of reducing them, add an accountability system instead of half-@$$ing it and invest in this resource more. Other states take their hunting very serious. Why can't Georgia?



I've hunted Illinois each year for a long time (killed my first deer there in the 70's) and have yet to encounter a game warden.  I have also talked with other hunters there and can tell you that it is common practice for locals there to not report also despite the mandatory phone reporting system they currently use.  Outfitters also have been known to try to manipulate the reporting system to help their county show the number of kills they think will help them in some way or another...this is due to the county by county permit system IL uses.  Do you really think just because they have more regulations and require more of us hunters they get perfect results?

Some things you didn't mention but I would like to see more similar to other states are much higher cost (fines, loss of hunting privaliges, loss of firearms and equipment, etc.) for breaking the hunting laws and much higher license fees for non-res hunting, but those have nothing to do with the current discussion on this thread and those things are pretty much out of DNR control anyway as far as I understand.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 28, 2014)

mtr3333 said:


> No one shoots the limit of any statistical significance. Therefore, bag limit will have zero impact on population control. Poaching is not the problem either. See above.



And over in the "how long should deer season be" thread people want it as long as it is or longer 



T


----------



## The Longhunter (Dec 28, 2014)

mtr3333 said:


> No one shoots the limit of any statistical significance. Therefore, bag limit will have zero impact on population control. Poaching is not the problem either. See above.



I like to see a REAL compilation of the results of crop control permits.

State wide they may not have much effect, but on a local basis they certainly do.

You just don't see any discussion about the effect of the permits, or revisions of the permitting system, or even of properly monitoring the consequences.


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 28, 2014)

mtr3333 said:


> No one shoots the limit of any statistical significance. Therefore, bag limit will have zero impact on population control. Poaching is not the problem either. See above.



This is the mindset that's destroying our deer populations. Blaming the yotes and bait piles rather than hold yourself accountable. Thank You for being a perfect example.


----------



## mtr3333 (Dec 28, 2014)

Old Bart said:


> This is the mindset that's destroying our deer populations. Blaming the yotes and bait piles rather than hold yourself accountable. Thank You for being a perfect example.



 Your focus on horns is detracting from the real issue of the overall population which is in fantastic shape statewide. Sure, too many here not enough there. But, numbers are great statewide.


----------



## merc123 (Dec 28, 2014)

Old Bart said:


> This is the mindset that's destroying our deer populations. Blaming the yotes and bait piles rather than hold yourself accountable. Thank You for being a perfect example.



The estimated deer population is where it needs to be in order to have a healthy herd.  No one is destroying the population, we are effectively controlling the population.

The deer being killed are bigger than ever. They have healthy weights. Do you want anorexic 5 pointers or 145 pounds 10 pointers?

Do you want a 40 pound, 3 year old doe or a 120 pound 3 year old doe?


----------



## Throwback (Dec 28, 2014)

mtr3333 said:


> Your focus on horns is detracting from the real issue of the overall population which is in fantastic shape statewide. Sure, too many here not enough there. But, numbers are great statewide.



my son shot two does this weekend. 

Thats two does that can't produce big old bucks in the coming years. 

ironically, there were two bucks there also but since they didnt have 4 points on one side they weren't legal to shoot in this county. he would have much rather have shot them instead but he couldn't legally. RESULT? theyre still there and the does aren't. 

I wonder how many fawns those two sacred bucks will give birth to this spring? 


T


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 28, 2014)

Killmaster,

I would base my information off of the phone check-in.  In order to get the needed information it is mandatory for all hunters to call in their harvest weather they killed any or not at the end of the hunting year.  You set a date if they do not call.  They cannot hunt the next year.  They are also fined.  Additionally, you should only have four hours to call in your kill and get your tracking number that is recorded on your license.  That call does not count as your annual call.  That is how you get 100 percent accountability.  Your agency knows who bought a license.  Hunting is a privilege not a right.  You also have to do away with hunters being able print numerous harvest records.  A hunter can print one.  After that they need to report to a Regional office to get the next one if they lost it.  That way their harvest is recorded accurately.  There also is a charge for replacement.


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 28, 2014)

merc123 said:


> The estimated deer population is where it needs to be in order to have a healthy herd.  No one is destroying the population, we are effectively controlling the population.
> 
> The deer being killed are bigger than ever. They have healthy weights. Do you want anorexic 5 pointers or 145 pounds 10 pointers?
> 
> Do you want a 40 pound, 3 year old doe or a 120 pound 3 year old doe?



How can you make these assumptions when our deer herds are recorded as a whole and not county by county? I would put money a majority of those deer are in the Southern portion of the state, whereas the Northern portion lacks proper herd density. 

Until the new harvest system gets put in place, we can only make an educated guess as to what the local populations are. 

Also food plots are starting to become more common, this can be attributed to larger deer and higher population densities.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 28, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> Killmaster,
> 
> I would base my information off of the phone check-in.  In order to get the needed information it is mandatory for all hunters to call in their harvest weather they killed any or not at the end of the hunting year.  You set a date if they do not call.  They cannot hunt the next year.  They are also fined.  Additionally, you should only have four hours to call in your kill and get your tracking number that is recorded on your license.  That call does not count as your annual call.




how much will this cost and who will pay for it?

so if 90% of the hunters don't call in once at the end of the year they get their hunting priveliges suspended for a year?






T


----------



## Milkman (Dec 28, 2014)

Throwback said:


> how much will this cost and who will pay for it?
> 
> so if 90% of the hunters don't call in once at the end of the year they get their hunting priveliges suspended for a year?
> 
> ...




I asked him that in post # 63 above


----------



## Throwback (Dec 28, 2014)

cowhornedspike said:


> I've hunted Illinois each year for a long time (killed my first deer there in the 70's) and have yet to encounter a game warden.  I have also talked with other hunters there and can tell you that it is common practice for locals there to not report also despite the mandatory phone reporting system they currently use.  Outfitters also have been known to try to manipulate the reporting system to help their county show the number of kills they think will help them in some way or another...this is due to the county by county permit system IL uses.




you can't be serious! (sarcasm)


T


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 28, 2014)

Yes, you loose the privilege for a year and have to pay the fine before you get your next license one year later.  Killmaster is already setting up the call-in system.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 28, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> Yes, you loose the privilege for a year and have to pay the fine before you get your next license one year later.  Killmaster is already setting up the call-in system.



how much will this cost and how will it be funded? you don't suspend thousands of peoples hunting priveliges at no cost. suspending one persons priveliges is no quick task. 

What will you do for a due process hearing for those that demand it when they are suspended? how will this be funded? who will pay? 

90% was the percent of people that DID NOT turn in their used tags under the old system we had. 


T


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 28, 2014)

That is for the DNR and State Legislature to decide.  In my opinion the fine should be no less than $50.  People report things when there is a cost.  The problem with the old system.  No accountability.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 28, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> That is for the DNR and State Legislature to decide.  In my opinion the fine should be no less than $50.  People report things when there is a cost.  The problem with the old system.  No accountability.



so basically you don't know.

do you want them fined or priveliges suspended?  you said suspended first now youre talking abuot a 50 dollar fine. it will cost more than that to compile the information, send it out by registered mail, give them an opportunity to respond, set up a hearing if needed,etc. 



T


T


----------



## Red350SS (Dec 28, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> That is for the DNR and State Legislature to decide.  In my opinion the fine should be no less than $50.  People report things when there is a cost.  The problem with the old system.  No accountability.



Sounds like a good way to create an enforcement nightmare and multiply the number of poachers tenfold. Any plan put in place will have to be practical. Sounds like C Killmaster is working on just that. Some of these other plans are nightmares plain and simple.


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 28, 2014)

Both.  They don't notify anyone who did not report.  You find out when you renew your license. You report to a regional office and state your case as to why you did not report.  Quite simple.  Once again hunting is a privilege not a right.  You are getting it confused.  The DNR gets the funds and you do not hunt that year.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 28, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> Both.  They don't notify anyone who did not report.  You find out when you renew your license. You report to a regional office and state your case as to why you did not report.  Quite simple.  Once again hunting is a privilege not a right.  You are getting it confused.  The DNR gets the funds and you do not hunt that year.





So they have no due process rights? 

do you even know what that means?



T


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 28, 2014)

No and Yes.  Why? Fight something you never did in the first place?  Excuses...excuses.  You have a phone and care about your privilege right?  I bet you will never forget any deer your shot.  Properly accounting for it.  That is a problem?  Where is the due process?  The owner of the privilege.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 28, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> Killmaster,
> 
> I would base my information off of the phone check-in.  In order to get the needed information it is mandatory for all hunters to call in their harvest weather they killed any or not at the end of the hunting year.  You set a date if they do not call.  They cannot hunt the next year.  They are also fined.  Additionally, you should only have four hours to call in your kill and get your tracking number that is recorded on your license.  That call does not count as your annual call.  That is how you get 100 percent accountability.  Your agency knows who bought a license.  Hunting is a privilege not a right.  You also have to do away with hunters being able print numerous harvest records.  A hunter can print one.  After that they need to report to a Regional office to get the next one if they lost it.  That way their harvest is recorded accurately.  There also is a charge for replacement.



You would have pure mutiny if this were implemented.  This would erode all public support for the agency and is totally unnecessary to manage deer populations.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 28, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> No and Yes.  Why? Fight something you never did in the first place?  Excuses...excuses.  You have a phone and care about your privilege right?  I bet you will never forget any deer your shot.  Properly accounting for it.  That is a problem?  Where is the due process?  The owner of the privilege.



That's not the way that works


If you suspend a while bunch of people's privileges they'll just hunt without a license at all and won't have to worry about reporting it at all



T


----------



## merc123 (Dec 28, 2014)

Throwback said:


> That's not the way that works
> 
> 
> If you suspend a while bunch of people's privileges they'll just hunt without a license at all and won't have to worry about reporting it at all
> ...



No they wont!  People never print multiple sets of tags!


----------



## Throwback (Dec 28, 2014)

merc123 said:


> No they wont!  People never print multiple sets of tags!



They never get every family member they can to buy hard tags they can use either !!


T


----------



## Ben Athens (Dec 28, 2014)

I dont care what system is used. The end result is only going to provide an estimate of what is really harvested. Tag system,  call in system,  harvest cards are only for honest folks any way. When all this gets to complicated i will go hunt out of state each year and spend my money there. 

Every deer hunter is a biologist.......but few biologist hunt.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 28, 2014)

Ben Athens said:


> Every deer hunter is a biologist.......but few biologist hunt.



I beg to differ, every biologist I know in the game management section is an avid hunter.


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Dec 28, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> That's because coyotes weren't a significant mortality factor for fawns until the early 2000's.  You were told what the science had shown at the time.  Reducing either-sex days will reduce doe harvest, but they may have to be scheduled differently to accomplish the intended goal.



From the regs:
Why Not Reduce the Bag Limit? Harvest data indicate that most deer hunters (93 percent) kill two or fewer does. Thus, any change in bag limit would have to be drastic (e.g., from 10 to two) to affect a population-level change in the deer herd. This would reduce the doe harvest far beyond what is needed to stabilize the population. This would also unduly restrict management flexibility on some properties and areas where a higher doe harvest may be needed to meet desired management objectives.

The intent is to shoot fewer does and you sound as if the current dates you set do not accomplish this so let me ask is the goal to reduce the number of does taken by the 93% or the 7%. The person you most affect with doe days is the guy having trouble shooting his two or less. You state  that going to a limit of two would not maintain a stable population so set the limit at a higher number that would. This should not be hard to figure out if your harvest data is as good as yall claim right?


----------



## WNewman (Dec 29, 2014)

Throwback said:


> my son shot two does this weekend.
> 
> Thats two does that can't produce big old bucks in the coming years.
> 
> ...



Had to do the same thing in our county this year, no bigger bucks around.  Passed up several spikes and 3 and 4 pointers early in the season since they were not legal, took the does that were.   Several of the guys have had to do this so now we are down 5 or so does.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 29, 2014)

Throwback said:


> my son shot two does this weekend.
> 
> Thats two does that can't produce big old bucks in the coming years.
> 
> ...





WNewman said:


> Had to do the same thing in our county this year, no bigger bucks around.  Passed up several spikes and 3 and 4 pointers early in the season since they were not legal, took the does that were.   Several of the guys have had to do this so now we are down 5 or so does.



Hip, Hip, Hurrah for QDM.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Dec 29, 2014)

Milkman said:


> Hip, Hip, Hurrah for QDM.



Yep.  Not a big fan of QDM and fortunately I don't hunt in a QDM county (other than the statewide 2nd buck QDM rule).


----------



## mtr3333 (Dec 29, 2014)

Throwback said:


> my son shot two does this weekend.
> 
> Thats two does that can't produce big old bucks in the coming years.
> 
> ...



Awesome! Now 2 does and possibly 4-6 fawns won't be eating food that was meant for the nutrition of 2 sets of horns! You see. It's all how you look at it.


----------



## merc123 (Dec 29, 2014)

HOGDOG76 said:


> This would also unduly restrict management flexibility on some properties and areas where a higher doe harvest may be needed to meet desired management objectives.



This is exactly what I believe the root issue is.  A statewide limit imposed on all areas makes people mad.  Area A has 100 doe/square mile.  Area B has 10 doe/square mile.  Area A wants to kill more does because they have tons.  Area B just wants to see a doe to kill.  Both are allowed to kill 10.  Area B folks believe that it needs to be lower because they don't see any does.  Area A want to kill more doe to stabilize their population.  Where is the middle ground?  

The solution is not simple.  You can not get that granular with state regs like hunt clubs can.  It just isn't feasible or cost effective.

I feel sorry for Killmaster.  Everyone sees their sliver of pie whereas he sees the whole pie.  Everyone wants to sharpshoot their piece of pie without realizing the bigger picture.  People can't even agree that a .223 bullet will kill deer dead just as good as a .308 with the proper shot placement.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 29, 2014)

merc123 said:


> This is exactly what I believe the root issue is.  A statewide limit imposed on all areas makes people mad.  Area A has 100 doe/square mile.  Area B has 10 doe/square mile.  Area A wants to kill more does because they have tons.  Area B just wants to see a doe to kill.  Both are allowed to kill 10.  Area B folks believe that it needs to be lower because they don't see any does.  Area A want to kill more doe to stabilize their population.  Where is the middle ground?
> 
> The solution is not simple.  You can not get that granular with state regs like hunt clubs can.  It just isn't feasible or cost effective.



A deer management assistance program (DMAP) will do that.  This is precisely why the deer plan calls for developing a program proposal.  Under this program, the bag limit could be set for what's biologically appropriate for the majority of the state and a biologist would be able to issue site-specific tags based on data collected from the property.

Over half the southeastern states use DMAPs to manage this way.  When deer populations rose following restocking, each state either went the DMAP route or gave hunters the flexibility to manage mostly on their own like Georgia.  This worked great for years until it was time to back off the trigger.  Since that's no longer working, we have to take a different approach.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 29, 2014)

HOGDOG76 said:


> The intent is to shoot fewer does and you sound as if the current dates you set do not accomplish this so let me ask is the goal to reduce the number of does taken by the 93% or the 7%. The person you most affect with doe days is the guy having trouble shooting his two or less. You state  that going to a limit of two would not maintain a stable population so set the limit at a higher number that would. This should not be hard to figure out if your harvest data is as good as yall claim right?



The 93% are the problem.  In most cases, not all, the 7% are hunters on large properties with low hunter density and a large deer population.  If you reduce what that 7% takes, it only increases the population on those properties and does nothing to help the average hunter.  The reason the doe harvest remains higher than it should be is over 100,000 average hunters taking 2 to 3 does each.

It's certainly far from a perfect system, but it takes time to make substantial changes particularly where laws are concerned.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 29, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> The reason the doe harvest remains higher than it should be is over 100,000 average hunters taking 2 to 3 does each.
> 
> It's certainly far from a perfect system, but it takes time to make substantial changes particularly where laws are concerned.



It's also gonna be hard to change the "need meat, shoot a doe" mentality.  Particularly when buck #2 needs 4 pts on one side and a button head is the most sacred critter in the forest.

I'm a big fan of the DMAP idea, I think it's a "win-win" for everybody.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 29, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> It's also gonna be hard to change the "need meat, shoot a doe" mentality.  Particularly when buck #2 needs 4 pts on one side and a button head is the most sacred critter in the forest.
> 
> I'm a big fan of the DMAP idea, I think it's a "win-win" for everybody.



The great thing is that it isn't a new idea, so we can learn from the trial and error of other states over the last 20 to 30 years.  Believe me, I've picked their brains extensively about their respective programs.


----------



## Atlanta Dawg (Dec 29, 2014)

*When....*



C.Killmaster said:


> The great thing is that it isn't a new idea, so we can learn from the trial and error of other states over the last 20 to 30 years.  Believe me, I've picked their brains extensively about their respective programs.



Mr. Killmaster-What is the specific date or target date that the actual revisions will be promulgated?  I see of course in the release that the Board of Natural Resources will consider the proposal in the MONTH OF MAY 2015 ...So when is it anticipated that the specific details and the final result will be made available?  

Many people have reasons to be very concerned as to how they will be affected personally in terms of potential lost club members, lease renewals, vacation planning, etc...) by the decision's  that are made.

Thank you...


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 29, 2014)

Atlanta Dawg said:


> Mr. Killmaster-What is the specific date or target date that the actual revisions will be promulgated?  I see of course in the release that the Board of Natural Resources will consider the proposal in the MONTH OF MAY 2015 ...So when is it anticipated that the specific details and the final result will be made available?
> 
> Many people have reasons to be very concerned as to how they will be affected personally in terms of potential lost club members, lease renewals, vacation planning, etc...) by the decision's  that are made.
> 
> Thank you...



The proposed regulations will be available on the website in early April.  The final approved regulations will first be available shortly after the Board meeting in May.  At that point, it will still be in the official format which is a little more cumbersome to read through.  We'll produce the hunting regulations guide book mid-summer as usual.


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Dec 29, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> The 93% are the problem.  In most cases, not all, the 7% are hunters on large properties with low hunter density and a large deer population.  If you reduce what that 7% takes, it only increases the population on those properties and does nothing to help the average hunter.  The reason the doe harvest remains higher than it should be is over 100,000 average hunters taking 2 to 3 does each.
> 
> It's certainly far from a perfect system, but it takes time to make substantial changes particularly where laws are concerned.



So the solution is to set the limits for the 93% and let the 7% solve the problem by hosting wounded warrior or disabled hunts if they really need more killed? It sounds as if the resource is being managed exclusively for the large politically connected landowners now.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 29, 2014)

HOGDOG76 said:


> So the solution is to set the limits for the 93% and let the 7% solve the problem by hosting wounded warrior or disabled hunts if they really need more killed? It sounds as if the resource is being managed exclusively for the large politically connected landowners now.



Nope, that's where DMAP comes in.


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Dec 30, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> Nope, that's where DMAP comes in.



Oh you mean the program where large landowners get a management plan from a biologist funded by us that allows them to take more than the limit while the average hunter suffers. Its very clear who you cater to


----------



## Ben Athens (Dec 30, 2014)

So as i am beginning to undetstand it this DMAP will be county by county and have a harvest reporting system of some type  ?

Isnt that what we had in the past  ?


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 30, 2014)

HOGDOG76 said:


> Oh you mean the program where large landowners get a management plan from a biologist funded by us that allows them to take more than the limit while the average hunter suffers. Its very clear who you cater to



No, it would be fee based and largely cater to hunt clubs.  One of the biggest benefits of the program is additional biological staff dedicated to providing technical guidance to private lands for deer management, especially hunt clubs on leased land where that advice is needed most.

In most cases, those large private landowners have their own private consultants for biological advice so the state biologists won't have to spend much time working for them.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 30, 2014)

Ben Athens said:


> So as i am beginning to undetstand it this DMAP will be county by county and have a harvest reporting system of some type  ?
> 
> Isnt that what we had in the past  ?



No, it's a property level deer management program.  A hunt club would join DMAP and work with a biologist to set deer harvest goals.  The club collects data that the biologist uses to determine the appropriate number of deer that should be taken to meet those goals.  The biologist then prescribes site-specific tags to the club based on what they need to accomplish the goals.  This provides the hunters who are actively managing deer some level of autonomy, grounded in science, from state regulations.  State regulations would then be designed to best fit the average conditions across the state or region.


----------



## The Longhunter (Dec 30, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> No, it's a property level deer management program.  A hunt club would join DMAP and work with a biologist to set deer harvest goals.  The club collects data that the biologist uses to determine the appropriate number of deer that should be taken to meet those goals.  The biologist then prescribes site-specific tags to the club based on what they need to accomplish the goals.  This provides the hunters who are actively managing deer some level of autonomy, grounded in science, from state regulations.  State regulations would then be designed to best fit the average conditions across the state or region.



I've sort of seen how this works in South Carolina, but it's on extremely large properties with professional managers.

So here's a couple of questions.

The biologist and the club agree on the harvest goals for that piece of property.  Who is going to monitor it?  Do the members of the club keep their 12 tags each?  What happens when the club uses its "site specific tags" in the first two weeks of the season -- is it supposed to shut down?

Scenario -- We have 1500 acres.  The really smart people at UGA say we should harvest 3 mature bucks from that property.  Well, and good, and we whack them the first two weeks of the season.  Then the buck of a lifetime wanders through, do we expect the club to just let him pass?

Right now, I like the idea of the landowner being able to manage "his" "herd' in an academic sort of way, but there is nothing in Georgia's history that indicates that it will be a successful model.  It's hard to forget that in the time of open range, and large landowners managing the "herd",  deer virtually became extinct in Georgia.


----------



## Old Bart (Dec 30, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> No, it's a property level deer management program.  A hunt club would join DMAP and work with a biologist to set deer harvest goals.  The club collects data that the biologist uses to determine the appropriate number of deer that should be taken to meet those goals.  The biologist then prescribes site-specific tags to the club based on what they need to accomplish the goals.  This provides the hunters who are actively managing deer some level of autonomy, grounded in science, from state regulations.  State regulations would then be designed to best fit the average conditions across the state or region.



My only concern is, are there enough Biologists for this DMAP program and are they ready to deal with a variety of mindsets. I personally like the system, it's a great way to manage and record deer herds, at the local level.


----------



## Ben Athens (Dec 30, 2014)

Unless your club is a dictatorship the plan will not work.  I was in a club that had a bilogist do an evaluation. He recommened that will take 20 does off the 800 acres. The members laughed at him and said there was no way they were going to kill all the " bait  " .   

Getting your average club to collect data is easier said than done.  I dont see how a DMAP is going to be much of a benefit unless you own a large planatation.


----------



## Atlanta Dawg (Dec 30, 2014)

This is a great idea IF the DMAP Club/Landowner pays for 100% of the expense of implementing this sort of program.  Matter of fact-you could probably contract with a Wild Life Biologist now to do that for you-just like you do a Forester to manage your tree operation.  But.....if the State is to provide the Wild Life Biologist and their wages/ expenses out of a license fee, general fund, etc....it is a poor way to spend our tax dollars for 99 % of the people and a great way for 1 %'rs who have the land.  Hopefully or legislators are sharp enough to let this one go by the wayside...


----------



## elfiii (Dec 30, 2014)

Atlanta Dawg said:


> Hopefully or legislators are sharp enough to let this one go by the wayside...



Right now you can do DMAP for free. You call the WRD biologist for your area, he does a survey based on data you have collected and makes a recommendation. It doesn't cost you a penny.

The proposed DMAP applies to large tracts of land and they have to pay to play. Small tracts would still get the free service. Sounds to me like they are favoring smaller clubs/property owners over the big guys.


----------



## The Longhunter (Dec 30, 2014)

Ben Athens said:


> Getting your average club to collect data is easier said than done.  I dont see how a DMAP is going to be much of a benefit unless you own a large planatation.



This, for sure.

We've been trying to get members to just record sex and dressed weight for 20 years for maybe 6 deer a year.  We have everything set, scale, gambrel, hoist, -- good luck doing that.


----------



## Atlanta Dawg (Dec 30, 2014)

elfiii said:


> Right now you can do DMAP for free. You call the WRD biologist for your area, he does a survey based on data you have collected and makes a recommendation. It doesn't cost you a penny.
> 
> The proposed DMAP applies to large tracts of land and they have to pay to play. Small tracts would still get the free service. Sounds to me like they are favoring smaller clubs/property owners over the big guys.



I certainly like the idea that there is a charge for the large tracts.  There should also be a charge for small tracts.  There is an expense involved and I may be wrong...but it sounds to me like the desire is to expand the WRD influence and let the tax payers thru whatever means-pay for it-In my view-if you want a service like this you should pay for it and it should be significant.  If you don't want it-you don't have to have it and you pay nothing...About 20 years ago I called WRD and they had Mr. Reggie Thackston do a survey on 658 acres I had and I was surprised that it was free.  I asked for it- Mr. Thackston did a fine job....no complaints-I should have paid the State of Georgia for his work-it took time to get to the property-do the survey-prepare the report, etc..... Respectfully submitted.


----------



## Ben Athens (Dec 30, 2014)

Which states currently utilize a DMAP  ?


----------



## elfiii (Dec 30, 2014)

Atlanta Dawg said:


> I certainly like the idea that there is a charge for the large tracts.  There should also be a charge for small tracts.  There is an expense involved and I may be wrong...but it sounds to me like the desire is to expand the WRD influence and let the tax payers thru whatever means-pay for it-In my view-if you want a service like this you should pay for it and it should be significant.  If you don't want it-you don't have to have it and you pay nothing...About 20 years ago I called WRD and they had Mr. Reggie Thackston do a survey on 658 acres I had and I was surprised that it was free.  I asked for it- Mr. Thackston did a fine job....no complaints-I should have paid the State of Georgia for his work-it took time to get to the property-do the survey-prepare the report, etc..... Respectfully submitted.



The large tracts would pay for the population survey in return for being issued additional doe tags to manipulate their population. As it was explained to us on the Piedmont subcommittee once enrolled the large tract would be required to collect the data for the biologist and conform in all other respects to the DMAP program.

For small tract owners the service is still free but all you get is a recommendation based on data you provide, complete or incomplete - no additional tags issued as a result of the recommendation. That is the way it operates currently.


----------



## Atlanta Dawg (Dec 30, 2014)

elfiii said:


> The large tracts would pay for the population survey in return for being issued additional doe tags to manipulate their population. As it was explained to us on the Piedmont subcommittee once enrolled the large tract would be required to collect the data for the biologist and conform in all other respects to the DMAP program.
> 
> For small tract owners the service is still free but all you get is a recommendation based on data you provide, complete or incomplete - no additional tags issued as a result of the recommendation. That is the way it operates currently.



Is there some sort of rate chart - as an example-  "X" Dollars per acre, etc....in other words how is the charge to be calculated and is there some sort of contract to stay in the program for a certain number of years, etc...?  Thanks !


----------



## elfiii (Dec 30, 2014)

Atlanta Dawg said:


> Is there some sort of rate chart - as an example-  "X" Dollars per acre, etc....in other words how is the charge to be calculated and is there some sort of contract to stay in the program for a certain number of years, etc...?  Thanks !



Don't think they have come up with that yet. The G.A. has to approve it via legislation first so the details will come later.


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 30, 2014)

Killmaster,

You are killing me DMAP?  A program developed by Gary Alt in Pa.  At least he could provide county wide population/harvest numbers.  In a state where hunters are allowed to only kill one buck.  They pay for every doe license and have to be selected by lottery to shoot a doe.  After the lottery you can buy leftover licenses.  DMAP tags where issued at an additional cost to any one willing to pay for it.  Lets compare that to Georgia.  Every hunter can already kill 2 bucks and 10 does at no additional cost other than buying a hunting license.  There has to be a joke somewhere here?  How does it fit?  I have a 10000 acre club which has fifty members.  We can already shoot 500 does.  Why do I need your help?  And why would I pay you to tell me to shoot 600?  We only kill 100 in the first place.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 30, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> State regulations would then be designed to best fit the average conditions across the state or region.





Scrub Buck said:


> Killmaster,
> 
> You are killing me DMAP?  A program developed by Gary Alt in Pa.  At least he could provide county wide population/harvest numbers.  In a state where hunters are allowed to only kill one buck.  They pay for every doe license and have to be selected by lottery to shoot a doe.  After the lottery you can buy leftover licenses.  DMAP tags where issued at an additional cost to any one willing to pay for it.  Lets compare that to Georgia.  Every hunter can already kill 2 bucks and 10 does at no additional cost other than buying a hunting license.  There has to be a joke somewhere here?  How does it fit?  I have a 10000 acre club which has fifty members.  We can already shoot 500 does.  Why do I need your help?  And why would I pay you to tell me to shoot 600?  We only kill 100 in the first place.



Read what I wrote before launching into why you think it won't work.


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 30, 2014)

I have read everything you have wrote and listened to everything you have said.  Plus I have sat back and watched your productivety.  Gary Alt failed.  Who is next?


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Dec 30, 2014)

elfiii said:


> Don't think they have come up with that yet. The G.A. has to approve it via legislation first so the details will come later.



So what we are getting is Obamacare for deer hunting.....you gotta pass it to see how it will work


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 30, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> I have read everything you have wrote and listened to everything you have said.  Plus I have sat back and watched your productivety.  Gary Alt failed.  Who is next?



Might want to check your facts, Gary Alt didn't develop DMAP it was Dave Guynn who developed the program in the early 1980's.

As far as my productivity, you have absolutely no basis to make a judgement on my work ethic or accomplishments.  Because you've reduced this to personal attacks instead of what I had hoped would be an enlightening discussion for all, my correspondence with you is over.


----------



## Resica (Dec 30, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> I have read everything you have wrote and listened to everything you have said.  Plus I have sat back and watched your productivety.  Gary Alt failed.  Who is next?



What did Gary Alt fail at? Ticking hunters off because they shot all the deer that they were given tags for?


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 30, 2014)

HOGDOG76 said:


> So what we are getting is Obamacare for deer hunting.....you gotta pass it to see how it will work



Wrong again, you'll have the opportunity to review proposed legislation and provide input to your elected officials.  If it makes it through that phase, the regulatory action that details the program is subject to public meetings and hearings.

That's two opportunities to voice your concerns, in addition to the two opportunities already presented in the deer management plan that gave rise to the development of the program proposal.


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Dec 30, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> Wrong again, you'll have the opportunity to review proposed legislation and provide input to your elected officials.  If it makes it through that phase, the regulatory action that details the program is subject to public meetings and hearings.
> 
> That's two opportunities to voice your concerns, in addition to the two opportunities already presented in the deer management plan that gave rise to the development of the program proposal.



No I am not wrong, you want support  without being willing to give out all the details in advance. Your last two plans have failed so expect skepticism.If all is above board why not tell us now how big a property has to be to receive bonus tags and how low the new statewide quota will be if your proposal is accepted?


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 30, 2014)

HOGDOG76 said:


> No I am not wrong, you want support  without being willing to give out all the details in advance. Your last two plans have failed so expect skepticism.If all is above board why not tell us now how big a property has to be to receive bonus tags and how low the new statewide quota will be if your proposal is accepted?



No plans have failed, we've taken a step-wise approach to reducing doe harvest much like the approach taken years ago to increase it.  The details are what are being developed and what you'll see presented during the opportunities for public comment.  I certainly wouldn't expect your support without full understanding of what it entails, I'm just trying to keep people informed of what is being discussed.


----------



## merc123 (Dec 30, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> I have read everything you have wrote and listened to everything you have said.  Plus I have sat back and watched your productivety.  Gary Alt failed.  Who is next?



Your solution was to sell a hunting license and WMA stamp...  

In case you forgot:  http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=9193051&postcount=41


----------



## merc123 (Dec 30, 2014)

Old Bart said:


> How can you make these assumptions when our deer herds are recorded as a whole and not county by county? I would put money a majority of those deer are in the Southern portion of the state, whereas the Northern portion lacks proper herd density.
> 
> Until the new harvest system gets put in place, we can only make an educated guess as to what the local populations are.
> 
> Also food plots are starting to become more common, this can be attributed to larger deer and higher population densities.



Sorry missed this. Not assumptions. These were facts presented in the DNR management plan.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 31, 2014)

Ben Athens said:


> Which states currently utilize a DMAP  ?



Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Delaware, and possibly more that I'm not aware of.


----------



## Sixes (Dec 31, 2014)

Why is the limit of bucks never discussed about being raised?

The way hunters are now, bucks are more likely to be passed than to be shot and the does are taking the brunt of the killing. It's common to read hunters discussing seeing more bucks than does.

Why not still allow the same number of deer but have a couple of actual either sex "tags" that can be used for additional bucks? 

I'd much rather see someone kill a 2 year old 6 point than a 2 year old doe.

Hunting in Troup county under QDM rules, it would also be nice to have a tag that could be used for mature bucks that do not meet the 4 on a side rule, maybe add a spread, mainbeam, or age rule than can be used instead of simply  points on a side.


----------



## BornToHuntAndFish (Dec 31, 2014)

*Deer Management Assistance Programs (DMAP)*



Ben Athens said:


> Which states currently utilize a DMAP  ?





C.Killmaster said:


> Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Delaware, and possibly more that I'm not aware of.



This may help with even more info on DMAP's . . . 

the USA map DMAP image below is from the 2014 QDMA Whitetail Report on Page 26.



http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/bi...t-assistance-program-what-it-and-why-it-works

*Deer Management Assistance Program: What it is and Why it Works*

July 30, 2012 

"tried and true deer management tool called the “Deer Management Assistance Program” or DMAP. DMAP is the brain child of Dr. David Guynn of Clemson University who *first introduced the concept in the early 80’s*" 

"*DMAPs have been adopted by at least 20 states* as an effective tool for improving deer management and involving landowners in the deer management process" 


AND


http://www.qdma.com/corporate/whitetail-report

*QDMA's Whitetail Report*


Download QDMA's 2014 Whitetail Report (PDF; 64 pages)

To purchase a printed copy of the 2014 Whitetail Report for $10, click here.

Download QDMA's 2013 Whitetail Report (PDF; 68 pages)

To purchase a printed copy of the 2013 Whitetail Report for $10, click here.

Download QDMA's 2012 Whitetail Report (PDF; 60 pages)

Download QDMA’s 2011 Whitetail Report (PDF; 96 pages)

Download QDMA’s 2010 Whitetail Report (PDF; 77 pages)

Download QDMA’s 2009 Whitetail Report (PDF; 67 pages)


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 31, 2014)

The program failed miserably in Pa. and ultimately lead to the ouster of then deer biologist Gary Alt.  One of the biologist who was included in the Wisconsin study/plan.  Makes me wonder?


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 31, 2014)

Killmaster,

This should not have to be a play on words.  I misused developed and should have said initiated.  I'm trying to get your plan out of you.  How is the doe harvest going to be reduced to increased the population?  You decreased the population.  Now what?  As far as a personal attack.  I see it quite differently.  I have watched your work like a hawk.  I have never directed anything toward your work ethic or accomplishments.  You have been extremely effective in reducing the population.  I'm picking your brain for the hardest challenge you may ever face in your current position.  That is increasing the population.  I just want to know your approach.


----------



## Resica (Dec 31, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> The program failed miserably in Pa. and ultimately lead to the ouster of then deer biologist Gary Alt.  One of the biologist who was included in the Wisconsin study/plan.  Makes me wonder?



Gary Alt did not fail ,in my opinion. The hunters and politicians failed. Hunters complained about lack of deer and politicians caved. The professional should have been permitted to do what he does.

   Hunters were mad because they no longer saw 50 to 100 deer a day. Guess what, we had way to many deer for the habitat and he tried to get that back. I've heard hunters since, say that they see plants emerging that they knew were native to our state but had never seen, deer mowed them down before they could blossom. Oak trees that were  20 and 30 years old that were no higher than a foot tall, mowed down by our herd. 

    Massive deer kills over the winter because our habitat was so bad there was nothing to eat . Bellies full of mountain laurel and dead of starvation. They are getting the herd back to where it should be(without Gary) and the forests are recovering. The days of 100 deer a day are gone, and it's for the better of the deer and the woods!!Spoiled hunters ruined Gary Alt. Oh, Mr. Alt did wonders with our bears(second to none). He was unjustly run out of town on a rail in my opinion. He was the best thing to happen to our herd and forest and all anyone wanted was unlimited deer, morons.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 31, 2014)

Sixes said:


> Why is the limit of bucks never discussed about being raised?
> 
> The way hunters are now, bucks are more likely to be passed than to be shot and the does are taking the brunt of the killing. It's common to read hunters discussing seeing more bucks than does.
> 
> ...



Because an overwhelming majority of hunters want to keep the buck bag limit as is.  You are correct that it would take some harvest pressure off does, but only if hunters were willing to shoot more small bucks.

The hunters in Troup County have the ability to change the antler restriction, but not add a tag.  All you have to do is follow the same procedure for establishing antler restrictions in a new county.  Shoot me a PM with your email if you want a copy of the procedure.  I will warn you that reaching a consensus on a new restriction will be extremely difficult at best.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 31, 2014)

Resica said:


> Gary Alt did not fail ,in my opinion. The hunters and politicians failed. Hunters complained about lack of deer and politicians caved. The professional should have been permitted to do what he does.
> 
> Hunters were mad because they no longer saw 50 to 100 deer a day. Guess what, we had way to many deer for the habitat and he tried to get that back. I've heard hunters since, say that they see plants emerging that they knew were native to our state but had never seen, deer mowed them down before they could blossom. Oak trees that were  20 and 30 years old that were no higher than a foot tall, mowed down by our herd.
> 
> Massive deer kills over the winter because our habitat was so bad there was nothing to eat . Bellies full of mountain laurel and dead of starvation. They are getting the herd back to where it should be(without Gary) and the forests are recovering. The days of 100 deer a day are gone, and it's for the better of the deer and the woods!!Spoiled hunters ruined Gary Alt. Oh, Mr. Alt did wonders with our bears(second to none). He was unjustly run out of town on a rail in my opinion. He was the best thing to happen to our herd and forest and all anyone wanted was unlimited deer, morons.



Great perspective on the Pennsylvania deer wars!  I'm sure you've probably seen this video, but some others may find it entertaining.


----------



## Sixes (Dec 31, 2014)

C.Killmaster said:


> Because an overwhelming majority of hunters want to keep the buck bag limit as is.  You are correct that it would take some harvest pressure off does, but only if hunters were willing to shoot more small bucks.
> 
> The hunters in Troup County have the ability to change the antler restriction, but not add a tag.  All you have to do is follow the same procedure for establishing antler restrictions in a new county.  Shoot me a PM with your email if you want a copy of the procedure.  I will warn you that reaching a consensus on a new restriction will be extremely difficult at best.



Aren't the rules established for landowners only and lease holders would have no say so?


----------



## merc123 (Dec 31, 2014)

Scrub Buck said:


> Killmaster,
> 
> This should not have to be a play on words.  I misused developed and should have said initiated.  I'm trying to get your plan out of you.  How is the doe harvest going to be reduced to increased the population?  You decreased the population.  Now what?  As far as a personal attack.  I see it quite differently.  I have watched your work like a hawk.  I have never directed anything toward your work ethic or accomplishments.  You have been extremely effective in reducing the population.  I'm picking your brain for the hardest challenge you may ever face in your current position.  That is increasing the population.  I just want to know your approach.



Who said DNR wants to increase the deer population?


----------



## Throwback (Dec 31, 2014)

T


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 31, 2014)

Seen it. Very little following.  Resica are you sure the deer were killed from starvation and eating everything or was it caused by frozen ice three/four inches thick on a mountain side that caused broken bones?  I have many pictures at my house that support my theory and none to support yours.


----------



## Scrub Buck (Dec 31, 2014)

Merc 123,

I have met many biologists who can initiate population decreases in deer.  Anyone can do it.  Including you.  Tell people to pull the trigger and give them the opportunity.  Easy.  I never said the DNR wanted to increase the population.  I think and truly believe the hunters want them to do it.  There is not a biologist I have ever heard of who has been able to do it in the current era.  DMAP and QDMA focus on  decreasing the population.  That is why I want to know the plan.  The deer population in Ga. was established by restrictions in it's early years.  Why not rebuild it?


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 31, 2014)

Sixes said:


> Aren't the rules established for landowners only and lease holders would have no say so?



No, there are two separate surveys that must receive 2/3 support, one for landowners and one for resident hunters.  The process can be initiated by any group of sportsmen in the county, whether landowners or lessees.


----------



## Ben Athens (Dec 31, 2014)

How is a DMAP going to beneifit the average hunter?  

I have read the basics behind it and it is in  reality a way for large land owners to apply for more anterless tags to control deer numbers on their property and give their clients  tags to shoot deer that they would not otherwise get to. Seems to me this is only going to beneifit the souhern zone.  Must be presure from the plantation owners causing this much like the baiting issue.

I have been asscociated with clubs back in my college days in alabama where a hunter had to kill Up to 10 does before he was allowed to kill a buck. These does where killed as part of a DMAP andthe tags came from the state. 

Ben.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Dec 31, 2014)

Ben Athens said:


> How is a DMAP going to beneifit the average hunter?
> 
> I have read the basics behind it and it is in  reality a way for large land owners to apply for more anterless tags to control deer numbers on their property and give their clients  tags to shoot deer that they would not otherwise get to. Seems to me this is only going to beneifit the souhern zone.  Must be presure from the plantation owners causing this much like the baiting issue.
> 
> ...



DMAP isn't all about the tags, it's about the technical guidance on harvest and habitat management that helps the average hunter.  The indirect benefit to the average hunter is the ability to set harvest regulations at the state or regional level that are a best fit for most areas instead of the current regulations that have to accommodate all situations.  This benefit helps, whether you participate in the program or not.

This is really not much different than how our WMA system operates.  It allows hunt clubs and private landowners to manage based on science in a similar fashion if they are willing to collect the data to do so.


----------



## Ben Athens (Jan 1, 2015)

The average hunter here in Georgia pays a fee to join a lease and  does not have the ability to manage habitat. He may be able to put in a small food plot and do a little bush hogging but he doesnt own the land and is limited to what he can do.

Hunters in Georgia have done a really good job in the past decade letting small bucks go and shooting does. This was done through education and changing the mind set of the hunter. A DMAP is not needed a little tweaking of the regs and more education and explanation is needed. Facts would be great. 

Ben.


----------



## 308 WIN (Jan 1, 2015)

WNewman said:


> Had to do the same thing in our county this year, no bigger bucks around.  Passed up several spikes and 3 and 4 pointers early in the season since they were not legal, took the does that were.   Several of the guys have had to do this so now we are down 5 or so does.



Here's a novel idea for you guys, how about passing the small bucks AND THE DOES every once in a while! 

Trigger happy people that just gotta shoot somethin every season, every weekend....... there's the meat and potatoes of your problem.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jan 1, 2015)

308 WIN said:


> Here's a novel idea for you guys, how about passing the small bucks AND THE DOES every once in a while!
> 
> Trigger happy people that just gotta shoot somethin every season, every weekend....... there's the meat and potatoes of your problem.



But but but if I don't shoot them I'm afraid the neighbor will...my deer population is the states fault, not mine...


----------



## Resica (Jan 1, 2015)

C.Killmaster said:


> Great perspective on the Pennsylvania deer wars!  I'm sure you've probably seen this video, but some others may find it entertaining.



That's funny . Thanks for posting. My camp is in 2G, center of  the deer wars.


----------



## merc123 (Jan 1, 2015)

308 WIN said:


> Here's a novel idea for you guys, how about passing the small bucks AND THE DOES every once in a while!
> 
> Trigger happy people that just gotta shoot somethin every season, every weekend....... there's the meat and potatoes of your problem.



I like deer meat and potatoes.


----------



## merc123 (Jan 1, 2015)

Scrub Buck said:


> Merc 123,
> 
> I have met many biologists who can initiate population decreases in deer.  Anyone can do it.  Including you.  Tell people to pull the trigger and give them the opportunity.  Easy.  I never said the DNR wanted to increase the population.  I think and truly believe the hunters want them to do it.  There is not a biologist I have ever heard of who has been able to do it in the current era.  DMAP and QDMA focus on  decreasing the population.  That is why I want to know the plan.  The deer population in Ga. was established by restrictions in it's early years.  Why not rebuild it?





You assumption is that it needs rebuilding. This may not be the case at all. It is like arguing we need stricter gun laws because of the school shooting yesterday.


----------



## mtr3333 (Jan 2, 2015)

Scrub Buck said:


> Killmaster,
> 
> This should not have to be a play on words.  I misused developed and should have said initiated.  I'm trying to get your plan out of you.  How is the doe harvest going to be reduced to increased the population?  You decreased the population.  Now what?  As far as a personal attack.  I see it quite differently.  I have watched your work like a hawk.  I have never directed anything toward your work ethic or accomplishments.  You have been extremely effective in reducing the population.  I'm picking your brain for the hardest challenge you may ever face in your current position.  That is increasing the population.  I just want to know your approach.



Please answer one critical question with all honesty.  Why does the deer population need to increase?


----------



## mtr3333 (Jan 2, 2015)

merc123 said:


> You assumption is that it needs rebuilding. This may not be the case at all. It is like arguing we need stricter gun laws because of the school shooting yesterday.



I hadn't read this yet. But, coming from more than one of us it is proof of the obvious.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 2, 2015)

mtr3333 said:


> Please answer one critical question with all honesty.  Why does the deer population need to increase?



....I can answer for me....'cause I like seeing deer 

In all honesty, there is plenty of good hunting in the State and areas where a reduction is likely still necessary.  My interest in change is that I have also seen the opposite.  That's why I like DMAP. It allows for targeted reduction/increase on a property level while limiting risk to those areas where a reduction is no longer needed.  I see it as a win win for both sides of this debate.


----------



## mtr3333 (Jan 2, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> ....I can answer for me....'cause I like seeing deer
> 
> In all honesty, there is plenty of good hunting in the State and areas where a reduction is likely still necessary.  My interest in change is that I have also seen the opposite.  That's why I like DMAP. It allows for targeted reduction/increase on a property level while limiting risk to those areas where a reduction is no longer needed.  I see it as a win win for both sides of this debate.



Fixed it for ya!


> ....I can answer for me....'cause I like seeing deer in the back of my truck



DMAP is another candy coated method for more govt.
Here:

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=622401&mode=2



> DMAP provides an additional means for landowners to manage deer to meet their land-use goals. *It also provides additional opportunities to the hunters who participate in the program*



In other words, The govt will take your hunting privilege then issue it back through permits. Great. !


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 2, 2015)

mtr3333 said:


> Fixed it for ya!



Nah.  My kill #'s have remained steady for several years now (excluding last year's state park hunt), sightings, which have tripled in the past 2 years, don't have much impact these days.  But, like most, there was a time.......




mtr3333 said:


> In other words, The govt will take your hunting privilege then issue it back through permits. Great. !



Restrictive/permissive regulations are just another expression of the same authority.  For instance, I don't see the difference in a 10 doe 2 buck limit and a 10 buck 2 doe limit if we are weighing gov't authority.  The 2 buck limit is restrictive compared to other states.......and you and I would most likely agree the statewide QDM rules (4 on one side for #2) is not beneficial overall.  However, we view the current regs as flexible.


----------



## mtr3333 (Jan 2, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> However, we view the current regs as flexible.



And how will DMAP add flexibility when the "extra" deer harvest will require more permission?


----------



## redwards (Jan 2, 2015)

mtr3333 said:


> And how will DMAP add flexibility when the "extra" deer harvest will require more permission?


Possibly this way....
Let's say my personal lease (not under DMAP) can withstand killing 2 does this season.
In order to satisfy my needs for venison over a year's period, I need to have meat from 10 deer in my freezer.
I contact a property owner who is participating in DMAP and he is willing to offer my permissable DMAP tags to me. I go to his property and fill my DMAP permit tags.....
Is that not flexibility?
Or am I misunderstanding DMAP (as it is administered in PA)?


----------



## mtr3333 (Jan 2, 2015)

redwards said:


> Possibly this way....
> Let's say my personal lease (not under DMAP) can withstand killing 2 does this season.
> In order to satisfy my needs for venison over a year's period, I need to have meat from 10 deer in my freezer.
> I contact a property owner who is participating in DMAP *and he is willing *to offer my permissable DMAP tags to me. I go to his property and fill my DMAP permit tags.....
> ...



I still haven't gotten an answer to a population impact question I posed on here. I suspect that is because the answer is more political than effectual.



> I contact a property owner who is participating in DMAP *and he is willing *to offer my permissable DMAP tags to me. I go to his property and fill my DMAP permit tags.....



Willing, unconditionally? Just show up? Won't ever encounter that situation like the BID clubs with 200 members on 4,000 acres of pure pine forest and slurry runoff if it rains. 

I say we have a great thing right now if people apply due diligence when seeking clubs and land to lease. Bad land will be bad or brought up to a better standard by the landowner. The free market will apply the same demand impacts to give property balance in value. If you are on a piece of crap deer lease, it's not my fault or the govt. Get mobile.

 Too many people look for someone else to bail out their bad decisions. That is just the plain truth. I hear it all the time, "I can't this or that". Can't never could, and try always did. Try finding a better place to hunt for more than $200-$400 dues and don't kill just to be killing. Hunt and have fun. Pay less attention to the pitch and look more at the property, membership and bylaws before committing.

 I laugh at this stuff then apply the same logic to fishing and then realize it's happening there too. People complain enough because they aren't seeing enough "X" and want more from the govt. And, the govt provides a program. Hooray... Slot limits, stocking this or that, wild geese... 

I believe someone above mentioned the impact of deer, nonnative I will add, upon the native flora of this state. People having the demands for more deer generally have little if any Biology background; therefore, they have even less comprehension of the impact of an imbalanced ecosystem. 

Not too long ago Red Top Mountain State Park was so overpopulated with deer that there was nothing green from the floor up to anything the deer could reach above their heads. Then "they" installed interspersed tiny food plots.  The result was a tagging of deer and an eradication/reduction govt sniper program to get rid of all those skinny, malnourished, pitiful park attractions. At least for now there is a hunt to keep the numbers in check. Earlier this week I did see where a large coyote was tracking a deer within the park. Maybe the coyotes will takeover.

You still think that people who want the govt to provide the solution know what they are talking about? I don't.


----------



## elfiii (Jan 2, 2015)

mtr3333 said:


> And how will DMAP add flexibility when the "extra" deer harvest will require more permission?



For starters DMAP is completely voluntary. Second, it's a deal. They agree to help you manage your local deer herd and you agree to manage it according to what the science dictates needs to be done. If you don't want to do a deal, don't. They can't make you do it.


----------



## merc123 (Jan 2, 2015)

mtr3333 said:


> I hadn't read this yet. But, coming from more than one of us it is proof of the obvious.





While I enjoy seeing deer and wish I could see 20 every time I get in the stand, the luxury is not afforded. I can not criticize a program that I can not 100% prove is the cause for me not seeing deer. Maybe I'm not hunting the wind. Maybe I play on my phone too much. 

Last year I saw deer 5 Saturday's in a row from the same tree. I went back this year and saw nothing. Why?  Someone had blazed an ATV tree through the management area. It was large enough I could follow it to their house. Or is it because of a 12 deer limit?


----------



## mtr3333 (Jan 2, 2015)

elfiii said:


> For starters DMAP is completely voluntary. Second, it's a deal. They agree to help you manage your local deer herd and you agree to manage it according to what the science dictates needs to be done. If you don't want to do a deal, don't. They can't make you do it.



Even if for starters it's voluntary, where is the permit voluntary? Or, is there a different model than the one instituted in Pennsylvania? 

We are quite capable of volunteering our efforts in the right direction now (as is) in the absence of any new fads or programs. The real problem is a result of poor choices and bailout solutions. People with the problems of not seeing deer either have unrealistic expectations or have poorly assessed their situation. 

Even if they can't make you participate, the ones asking for the assistance admit they don't have the expertise to make the decision themselves. What are they going to get from a bad investment even with this voluntary science advice? 

Landowners have been able to sell/lease terrible property for hunting just because it was in the right county. It's time for deer hunters to take the blinders off. No more guessing at how great the property is and putting out corn and a box stand 80 yards out. More people will need to be proactive in their results and not look for another bad fantasy to plug the hole.


----------



## mtr3333 (Jan 2, 2015)

merc123 said:


> While I enjoy seeing deer and wish I could see 20 every time I get in the stand, the luxury is not afforded. I can not criticize a program that I can not 100% prove is the cause for me not seeing deer. Maybe I'm not hunting the wind. Maybe I play on my phone too much.
> 
> Last year I saw deer 5 Saturday's in a row from the same tree. I went back this year and saw nothing. Why?  Someone had blazed an ATV tree through the management area. It was large enough I could follow it to their house. Or is it because of a 12 deer limit?



Someone blazed a trail to your honey hole. One of mine was destroyed by pulpwooders last year. One other place about 5 years after a good spot was clear cut, I killed the biggest deer off that property any of the members could remember. I did a lot of scouting to make myself "luckier". Whatcha bet those ATVs may have just made the deer shift their movement?


----------



## Scrub Buck (Jan 2, 2015)

mtr 333,

I already answered your question.  I firmly believe the hunters want it.  You are one, if you like it the way it is.  Fine.  One among thousands means little.  The DMAP program urges an increased harvest at a cost to both the hunter and the deer.  In Georgia it holds little value because you do not pay or have a lottery for doe tags.  Plus the biologist cannot provide population or harvest data other than statewide.  Without this any program that encourages the increased harvest of does will fail miserably.  As has already been proven.  Everyone can already shoot ten does for the cost of your license.  Why not invite guests to shoot the does yourself?  If you believe more need to be taken.  There is no cost.  Pretty simple if you ask me.


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Jan 2, 2015)

elfiii said:


> For starters DMAP is completely voluntary. Second, it's a deal. They agree to help you manage your local deer herd and you agree to manage it according to what the science dictates needs to be done. If you don't want to do a deal, don't. They can't make you do it.



Participation in the DMAP program may be voluntary but the new harvest limits that come with it are not. Can you tell me or point me in the direction to answer these questions so I can better understand the program?

-Is the goal to reduce the doe harvest statewide?

-What is the new proposed individual harvest limit gonna be?

-How large does a property have to be to participate in DMAP and receive bonus anterless permits?


----------



## mtr3333 (Jan 2, 2015)

Scrub Buck said:


> mtr 333,
> 
> I already answered your question.  I firmly believe the hunters want it.  You are one, if you like it the way it is.  Fine.  One among thousands means little.  The DMAP program urges an increased harvest at a cost to both the hunter and the deer.  In Georgia it holds little value because you do not pay or have a lottery for doe tags.  Plus the biologist cannot provide population or harvest data other than statewide.  Without this any program that encourages the increased harvest of does will fail miserably.  As has already been proven.  Everyone can already shoot ten does for the cost of your license.  Why not invite guests to shoot the does yourself?  If you believe more need to be taken.  There is no cost.  Pretty simple if you ask me.



The question was not for you. But, thanks anyway. Where does it say 10 doe limit? My regs are 10 antlerless deer limit. People wanted a lot in the past because it was sold to them in the name of good. I ain't buyin' this deal either. I saw what happened to the herd at its peak population. Peak was not good from health standpoint and more hunters need to educate themselves that more deer does not always equate to better quality deer. That is what they are thinking. More is going to be more and better quality deer.

 I outlined the failure at Red Top. We don't need another statewide failure to ease the groaning of a few hunters trying to make their problem everyone's problem then get everyone to get their will enforced.

I'll look more at the DMAP. But, my solution is simple. Caveat emptor. Do your homework before getting your land or lease commitment. Don't buy into a bad situation and cry for help that won't come.


----------



## merc123 (Jan 2, 2015)

mtr3333 said:


> Someone blazed a trail to your honey hole. One of mine was destroyed by pulpwooders last year. One other place about 5 years after a good spot was clear cut, I killed the biggest deer off that property any of the members could remember. I did a lot of scouting to make myself "luckier". Whatcha bet those ATVs may have just made the deer shift their movement?



It's possible. His trail was 5 yards from my tree 

We will probably shift around the mountain next year and see what we can see.


----------



## redwards (Jan 2, 2015)

mtr3333 said:


> .......If you are on a piece of crap deer lease, it's not my fault or the govt. Get mobile.
> 
> Too many people look for someone else to bail out their bad decisions. That is just the plain truth. I hear it all the time, "I can't this or that". Can't never could, and try always did. Try finding a better place to hunt for more than $200-$400 dues and don't kill just to be killing. Hunt and have fun. Pay less attention to the pitch and look more at the property, membership and bylaws before committing.......


Question......Statement directed toward me specifically, or just anybody in general?


----------



## Resica (Jan 2, 2015)

I've attached DMAP info from the Pennsylvania Game Commission's site if anyone is interested. I didn't read through it thoroughly but  it has a frequently asked question section. Maybe it'll be helpful.


http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=622401&mode=2


----------



## Scrub Buck (Jan 2, 2015)

Merc123,

 If your problem occurred on a WMA or Public Land either the DNR or US Forest Service is going to control burn the area.  They are prepping the land.  That is Public Land Hunting.  They ride four wheelers up and down the fire breaks


----------



## JJhunts (Jan 2, 2015)

We have one of the best managed herds in the country, keep up the good work killmaster. Oh and don't ask for more money, I'm all tapped out


----------



## Scrub Buck (Jan 2, 2015)

Mtr 333,

 If you want to kill button bucks?  Once again, have at it.  Sit down one day and think about it.  It was legal, was it the right decision for the years that follow or a spur of the moment thing to say I got one?  I have not shot a doe or antlerless deer in 15 years.  Why?  Once again, think about it for awhile.  By the way, hunting has only been allowed for a few years at Red Top.  No control measures prior.  How does it fit statewide?  I guess the states Biologist could not, once again provide the population numbers in a small area?


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jan 2, 2015)

Scrub Buck said:


> I guess the states Biologist could not, once again provide the population numbers in a small area?



After reading your posts it has become obvious that you despise Charlie Killmaster and think you know more than him and all of the other good folks associated with the DNR.  You have taken this to a personal level in several of your posts and whether or not your position has any credibility is irrelevant to me and probably many others reading this thread because that hate you hold and show overshadows anything else you have to offer in your opinions here.  It clearly is time for me to add another name to my GON ignore list.

Thanks Charlie for what you do for us!  Most of us appreciate it and believe you do a good job.


----------



## Scrub Buck (Jan 2, 2015)

Never said I know more than him or hate him. His position is to show the numbers.  No matter who asks.  He refuses or cannot.  Yet he wants to implement a program that cost hunters money and is  found on what you have on hand. SMALL SCALE.  He and the DNR has no foundation, data, or money to support it in the first place.


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Jan 3, 2015)

HOGDOG76 said:


> Participation in the DMAP program may be voluntary but the new harvest limits that come with it are not. Can you tell me or point me in the direction to answer these questions so I can better understand the program?
> 
> -Is the goal to reduce the doe harvest statewide?
> 
> ...



Elfi? Killmaster?


----------



## Old Bart (Jan 3, 2015)

Scrub Buck said:


> Never said I know more than him or hate him. His position is to show the numbers.  No matter who asks.  He refuses or cannot.  Yet he wants to implement a program that cost hunters money and is  found on what you have on hand. SMALL SCALE.  He and the DNR has no foundation, data, or money to support it in the first place.



Regardless if he can or cannot provide the information you keep asking about, Killmaster doesn't have to be on this forum, period. This is not required in his job description yet he answers our questions on his own time. Cut the guy some slack and respect the lengths he goes to listen to us hunters.


----------



## merc123 (Jan 3, 2015)

Scrub Buck said:


> Merc123,
> 
> If your problem occurred on a WMA or Public Land either the DNR or US Forest Service is going to control burn the area.  They are prepping the land.  That is Public Land Hunting.  They ride four wheelers up and down the fire breaks



Actually when I followed the trail it led me right to the guy and his wife joy riding their UTV around their private property that borders the or management land.   There isnt a fire break within 20 miles of this location.  Hasn't been a controlled burn in decades in this area either. Guess there isn't much point in burning leaves. 

I guess it is safe to assume you never understand the full details before adding your own assessments.


----------



## merc123 (Jan 3, 2015)

Scrub Buck said:


> Never said I know more than him or hate him. His position is to show the numbers.  No matter who asks.  He refuses or cannot.  Yet he wants to implement a program that cost hunters money and is  found on what you have on hand. SMALL SCALE.  He and the DNR has no foundation, data, or money to support it in the first place.



He did show you the numbers. He couldn't show you then numbers you want. Per household, per family member, per age group, per gender how many deer were killed...  Then again maybe even per age group wouldn't be granular enough. We definitely need to break it down even further and do it by specified age, gun caliber, grain bullet, brand and type.  We also need to make sure hunters report deer they think they hit but could not find. Doesnt count on tags but we need to make sure we count every possible deer death.

How else can we get accurate per area harvest numbers if we don't count deer that were probably killed but never found?!  We won't know if the management program is working if Johnny Killshot kills 7 deer but recovers 1.


----------



## merc123 (Jan 3, 2015)

Scrub Buck said:


> Never said I know more than him or hate him. His position is to show the numbers.  No matter who asks.  He refuses or cannot.  Yet he wants to implement a program that cost hunters money and is  found on what you have on hand. SMALL SCALE.  He and the DNR has no foundation, data, or money to support it in the first place.



Didn't you recommend they charge for WMA quota hunt draws and national forest permits?  Doesnt that cost the Hunter money?


----------



## Resica (Jan 3, 2015)

Mr. Killmaster, you may have Georgia Deer Wars on your hands before you know it.  Good luck.


----------



## elfiii (Jan 3, 2015)

HOGDOG76 said:


> Participation in the DMAP program may be voluntary but the new harvest limits that come with it are not. Can you tell me or point me in the direction to answer these questions so I can better understand the program?



You are correct. If your club is voluntarily participating in the DMAP program and the biologist says mow 'em down, here's the tags, that's what you try to do. If the biologist says kill no does, that's what you do.

DMAP is a voluntary program for hunters/landowners interested in applying science in managing their local deer population. If you aren't serious about applying the science because it might not suit your goal as to how many does and bucks you want to kill don't do it.

Since WRD wildlife biologist services are already offered for free you could choose not to participate in DMAP, enlist the services of your local WRD wildlife biologist to do a population survey and make recommendations. You would not be bound to implement those recommendations and would only be subject to existing law.



HOGDOG76 said:


> -Is the goal to reduce the doe harvest statewide?



Statewide as a rule, somewhat. Thus the re-institution of either sex days. Doe harvest has exceeded 60% of the annual harvest for many years now and that coupled with statewide declining fawn recruitment rates is unsustainable in the long run. It has become a huge problem in a growing number of areas in the state, including mine. The idea is to not let it get out of hand and have the whole state go back to the bad old days. WRD is making minimalist moves in that direction now so that they don't have to take drastic action down the road.

Our sub committee (Piedmont region) recommended maintaining or somewhat increasing the statewide population. Current population estimates are in the mid to high 900 thousands which approximates the carrying capacity of the statewide habitat. I personally would like to see it back over a million but that's an arbitrary number on my part.



HOGDOG76 said:


> -What is the new proposed individual harvest limit gonna be?



Only the General Assembly knows that since they control it. All WRD has control over is either sex days. After discussing bag limit v. either sex days our sub committee came to the conclusion controlling either sex days is a superior management tool to manipulating bag limits and recommended no change. I have no idea what the final plan will turn out to be or if the G.A. will change the bag limit or not.



HOGDOG76 said:


> -How large does a property have to be to participate in DMAP and receive bonus anterless permits?



In our sub committee discussions the initial suggested acreage limit indicated was a minimum of 1,000 acres. I doubt that is written in stone. If it comes to the point of enabling legislation in the G.A. a lot of work will have been done prior to that to structure a plan that is both manageable and realistic.

Personally I do not understand the objection to DMAP or the other population estimate/control services offered by WRD. Managing based on prudent science to insure the largest, healthiest, most balanced deer herd possible just seems like a smart thing to do to me. I have hunted the same place for over 30 years and seen the white tail deer population go from a scant few to an abundance to a proliferation and now back to a scant few. That is a result of prudent management followed by irrational exuberance on the part of trigger pullers. Science and stewardship now have my rapt attention. I want to go back to the days of abundance. That means putting the resource first and using some science to dictate when the trigger gets pulled and when it doesn't. I'm not a scientist. The wildlife biologists at WRD are. 

In one month I will have a year long trail camera survey of my property as well as detailed records regarding every hunt by every hunter on my property. I will be giving the wildlife biologist for my area a call to come take a look see at my data and make recommendations. I will follow them, continue to compile data, and go back for another look in another year. I'll keep doing that until I see satisfactory improvement in my local deer population.


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Jan 3, 2015)

elfiii said:


> You are correct. If your club is voluntarily participating in the DMAP program and the biologist says mow 'em down, here's the tags, that's what you try to do. If the biologist says kill no does, that's what you do.
> 
> DMAP is a voluntary program for hunters/landowners interested in applying science in managing their local deer population. If you aren't serious about applying the science because it might not suit your goal as to how many does and bucks you want to kill don't do it.
> 
> ...



Thank you very much for taking the time to answer all those and your explanation of the process. Maybe I just misunderstood this but killmaster stated the 93% that harvest two or less does are the problem and either sex days have yet to correct that. So it looks like we are headed for a drastic reduction in statewide harvest limits while large property owners with a healthy population can still pull extra does tags. Otherwise I doubt the trigger pullers around you who fail to recognize a diminished herd now are going to voluntarily submit themselves to DMAP and less doe harvests. If that is where we are headed in order to better manage the resource that is great but lets tell everybody now up front what they are signing on to. It really seems as if DNR is trying to garner support for this new program but not admit all the tenets needed to make it work.


----------



## Atlanta Dawg (Jan 4, 2015)

Question regarding DMAP-if this becomes widely accepted and many requests come in to have individual survey's done-how will WRD manage to fulfill the requests?  As an example-let's presume 1000 requests are received-how long would it likely take for WRD to do the survey, etc...and come out with a game plan for that tract of land?  Are there enough Wild Life Biologists on staff at present to implement this program-if it is approved ?  Thank you...


----------



## mtr3333 (Jan 4, 2015)

redwards said:


> Question......Statement directed toward me specifically, or just anybody in general?



That statement is for everyone. I made the mistake of not doing my homework on properties and decided to make a change where I would settle in. Unless you own the property and look to improve it, which in turn will improve the deer hunting, you are investing in cookout camper club on crappy property.


----------



## mtr3333 (Jan 4, 2015)

BTW everything DMAP can do for your property, you can do for your property now, and yes it is voluntary. Imposing lower limits statewide is not voluntary.


----------



## GameMgr270 (Jan 4, 2015)

I don't object to it but problem is, DMAP would primarily be utilized by hunters already applying some sort of management to their land and like stated above, can already be applied as liberally as desired to any land on your own. The areas needing it most would never participate. It would do nothing to prevent your neighbors from pulling the trigger every hunt.  You would end up with additional restrictions on your 1500 acre club and all of the 50-250 acre tracts bordering you would continue shooting and negate your efforts. 

As for statewide bag limits, there has to be a more regionalized approach. One blanket rule across the board for dozens of different rut periods, food source types, topography, cover, deer densities and hunter densities will never be accurate enough to properly address the concerns of each area. We need regionalized regs and decisions. Independent regs by the county would be best but that will never happen due to extreme cost of setup and enforcement.  
Blanket rules will continue to create this battle back and forth about deer densities being fine in my woods and not in yours bc of their failure to address specific needs. 

As an example, my woods were grown from nothing to an abundant healthy herd near 1:1 ratios back to a scarce amount in the last 3yrs, based mostly on illegal harvesting not counted in polling data. As for my group, we average 1 deer per person per year.  So based on extensive year around camera surveys, harvest analysis, fawn recruitment analysis, food source and predation considerations, we saw a huge decline in doe's and therefore we decided not to take a single doe this year.  Hard to do but it's what is best for my local herd to replenish. A spike can't reproduce.  Does the statewide regs address my needs? No. It's up to us to properly manage for tomorrow. Are my neighbors doing this too? Not a chance.  If I sign up for DMAP will it be any different? In my case I would say no. Working with our GWO has been the only recourse but as he says, it's like we have a bank with an open vault and all we do is say, you're only allowed to take out $100 per month..... No deposit necessary, I won't be there to watch and no one will know if you take more so just make sure you take only $100 ok? What a joke.


----------



## elfiii (Jan 4, 2015)

HOGDOG76 said:


> Thank you very much for taking the time to answer all those and your explanation of the process. Maybe I just misunderstood this but killmaster stated the 93% that harvest two or less does are the problem and either sex days have yet to correct that. So it looks like we are headed for a drastic reduction in statewide harvest limits while large property owners with a healthy population can still pull extra does tags. Otherwise I doubt the trigger pullers around you who fail to recognize a diminished herd now are going to voluntarily submit themselves to DMAP and less doe harvests. If that is where we are headed in order to better manage the resource that is great but lets tell everybody now up front what they are signing on to. It really seems as if DNR is trying to garner support for this new program but not admit all the tenets needed to make it work.



Either sex days were just re-instituted this year and then only the December break was put back in. They indicated they are operating by going backwards one step at a time in the reverse order in which either sex days and other regulations were removed. If after an interval reimposing the December break doesn't work they will move to the next step of reducing either sex days further.

I do not remember what the other sub-committess recommended as far as bag limit. IIRC I think the Mountain and Ridge and Valley folk recommended a reduction. The other three sub committees, I think, recommended no change. I know that was the Piedmont committee's recommendation. Again, WRD has no authority to set bag limits. That is done by the G.A. via legislation. All WRD can do is make suggestions.

As far as a 2 doe limit goes, as you and Charlie pointed out reducing the bag limit to 2 does would have little or no effect because 93% of the hunters in this state kill 2 does or less. To have a significant impact on the doe harvest the limit would have to be dropped to one, but that would probably be overkill as now we are talking cutting the doe harvest by half. Controlling either sex days is a much more subtle tool.

The purpose of DMAP is not so large landowners/clubs can get more doe tags. In the event they do it is for purposes of scientifically balancing their buck:doe ratio as well as reducing the total population to that of the carrying value of the habitat. Once that occurs no further additional doe tags would be issued. Participating in DMAP is not a Get Out of Jail Free card to go shoot all the does you can forever. The fact of the matter is if too many does are killed the participating DMAP club might be restricted to an annual doe harvest less than the state wide limit per hunter, or perhaps even 0 does depending on the population survey. DMAP cuts both ways. If you enroll, you take the good with the bad.

As far as landowners/clubs not participating in DMAP, they would not be subject to anything other than the statewide legal bag limit as promulgated by the legislature. Accordingly if you personally just got to whack 10 does every year to feel like a real man, whack 'em. You'll be sorry a couple of years down the line and will have nobody to blame but yourself.

Again, it is a voluntary choice to participate. The way it was presented to us if they are going to spend time and resources applying best biological science to determine what you need to do your part of the deal is adhering to the plan. Also, DMAP is not a permanent arrangement. It would last for a specified period of time for each property and upon the expiration of that time period the landowner/club would no longer be participating in DMAP unless they elect to re-up.

As far as the hunters around me I think most are acutely aware of the problem. Since we are a trophy county (Troup) the either sex day restriction does not apply to us or any other county that elected trophy management. If deer populations in those counties show similar declines WRD has the option to apply the either sex limitation to us. As it was explained to us since the trophy counties elected their status there was no change this year in either sex days. There is no guarantee that will remain the same next year. Again, WRD's motivation is to apply the least amount of regulation/ limitation to solve the problem now. If that doesn't work and populations continue to decline they will institute more stringent regulation, again, in the same reverse order the regulations were relaxed with an object of stabilizing the statewide deer population at the maximum carrying capacity of the habitat using the least amount of regulation required to accomplish that goal.

Their science is an inexact science for the simple reason it is impossible to accurately calculate the total population including the gender and age distribution as well as the total deer harvest, regardless of what method is used. The science they use is proven science across numerous disciplines for long periods of time that gives a close approximation of what is going on.

More importantly, social issues like hunter and landowner preference play a major role in how WRD operates. Very few states' DNR's make the effort the GA WRD does to get public input and weight it as a significant factor in what they do and don't do. In our Piedmont Region subcommittee meetings they placed heavy emphasis on their public opinion polls and inputs and we were provided copies of all poll results for all questions by all sub groups polled as well as the comments collected at the various meetings held across the state to get public input prior to beginning the process of formulating a new 10 Year Plan. If you showed up at a public input meeting, wrote a letter or sent an email and you were the only person expressing an interest in a particular topic we still saw your input. 

At our initial meeting they identified all of the issues the public had expressed significant interest in based on the public's input. We then voted individually on the matters important to us and the list of issues was pared down to a dozen or so out of the total based on the issues getting the highest number of votes from we committee members. Accordingly, the committee members set the agenda, not the WRD. Included in the issues we deliberated were most of the issues discussed in this forum. Possibly because many of us are members of this board and were already aware of the complaints and interests expressed by the members here which we also shared.

I know this is so because the draft 10 Year Plan they have published closely resembles the recommendations our committee made. Our committee was composed of land owners, timber company representatives, wildlife biologists, a GA State House Rep, and a bunch of just plain old deer hunters like you and me. I can't speak for the others but not once did I see an attempt to coerce or force a single recommendation we made and every recommendation we made had either unanimous support or the compromise consensus of the committee by individual open votes of the members.

Quite frankly it was surprising to me to see how many of the important issues were settled by unanimous votes after lively freewheeling debate in which all voices were heard and considered. The WRD staff facilitators did an excellent job of answering our questions and we found them to be very knowledgeable and informed on the topics. The facts they provided us with did influence our decisions but again, there was no attempt to influence us except in cases where we were divided. In those cases they acted only as facilitators to identify the conflicts and help us resolve them through a consensus compromise.

A lot of people on here like to bash WRD over every little thing. Criticism is fair because nobody is perfect and all of us make mistakes in judgement. That being said, having gotten to know the people who run Georgia's white tail deer management and being involved in the process I am confident they are top notch scientists, they know their stuff, they pay close attention to public sentiment, especially that of deer hunters and their goal is to maximize white tail deer hunting opportunities in the state of Georgia because they too are all deer hunters.

Some people won't be happy because they don't get everything they want. With 200,000 + deer hunters in Georgia it is impossible to please everybody, not to mention some people can't be pleased no matter how hard you try.

As a side note we were each given the same thick notebook full of analysis and data in advance of our first meeting to inform us in our deliberations. That notebook and its' contents are covered under Georgia's Open Records law. Accordingly, you can obtain a copy of the entire notebook under that law but you will be charged a fee for reproduction of the same. Contact C.Killmaster or jbowers on here to find out how to obtain it. It's worth the money and time invested to read it. Knowledge is power.

Finally and as my own personal axe to grind with respect to "it's the insurance companies fault" will one of you "insurance companies fault" boys do the following for me:

1. Explain how it is the insurance companies allowed WRD to manage the white tail deer population from less than 100,000 animals to 1.3 million animals over the last 30 years?

2. List the names of the deer hunters to whom the insurance companies placed a gun to their heads and said "You will kill that doe or we will kill you."

"I know this guy" doesn't count.


----------



## Old Bart (Jan 4, 2015)

GameMgr270 said:


> I don't object to it but problem is, DMAP would primarily be utilized by hunters already applying some sort of management to their land and like stated above, can already be applied as liberally as desired to any land on your own. The areas needing it most would never participate. It would do nothing to prevent your neighbors from pulling the trigger every hunt.  You would end up with additional restrictions on your 1500 acre club and all of the 50-250 acre tracts bordering you would continue shooting and negate your efforts.
> 
> As for statewide bag limits, there has to be a more regionalized approach. One blanket rule across the board for dozens of different rut periods, food source types, topography, cover, deer densities and hunter densities will never be accurate enough to properly address the concerns of each area. We need regionalized regs and decisions. Independent regs by the county would be best but that will never happen due to extreme cost of setup and enforcement.
> Blanket rules will continue to create this battle back and forth about deer densities being fine in my woods and not in yours bc of their failure to address specific needs.
> ...



This ^ 
DMAP will only help those seeking it, it's the ones that run the trigger and expect the DNR to fix the herds that create problems.


----------



## mtr3333 (Jan 4, 2015)

elfiii said:


> As far as landowners/clubs not participating in DMAP, they would not be subject to anything other than the statewide legal bag limit as promulgated by the legislature. Accordingly if you personally just got to whack 10 does every year to feel like a real man, whack 'em. You'll be sorry a couple of years down the line and will have nobody to blame but yourself.
> 
> Again, it is a voluntary choice to participate.




The voluntary part is only with those who participate wherein the state has instituted restrictions on everyone else? But, you might have the flexibility to try and find someone on another property to make up the difference?

That's nuts.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jan 4, 2015)

elfiii said:


> Either sex days ....
> 
> ...."I know this guy" doesn't count.



Well stated.  Thanks.


----------



## redwards (Jan 4, 2015)

mtr3333 said:


> That statement is for everyone. I made the mistake of not doing my homework on properties and decided to make a change where I would settle in. Unless you own the property and look to improve it, which in turn will improve the deer hunting, you are investing in cookout camper club on crappy property.


Not necessarily true. It depends on one's expectations when going into the investment.
Of course, if one only expects to invest in a cookout camper club then that is what one will get.
I have been deer hunting for 50 years...have never owned one piece of the property I hunted
previously, or currently.
Not one of those properties, (even the 2 clubs I left) were  "crappy property".
Nor has one ever been a cookout camper club.
However; at age 71, I realize not everyone thinks the same as I.


mtr3333 said:


> BTW everything DMAP can do for your property, you can do for your property now, and yes it is voluntary.


Very true...unfortunately not every hunter (or club) makes a commitment to do those things.
By the way, my son and I already do many of those things on the 2 tracts of property we hunt.
Again, it depends on the individual hunter's mentality.
Is he/she a giver.....or a taker?


mtr3333 said:


> Imposing lower limits statewide is not voluntary.


True...
IF the Georgia State Legislature passes an act to reduce the bag limit statewide, and the Governor signs
the act into law.
HOWEVER, every hunter in the state of Georgia has it within his/her power TODAY to VOLUNTARILY
impose a PERSONAL reduction in the number of deer he/she kills...BUT...


----------



## mtr3333 (Jan 4, 2015)

redwards said:


> Not necessarily true. It depends on one's expectations when going into the investment.
> Of course, if one only expects to invest in a cookout camper club then that is what one will get.
> I have been deer hunting for 50 years...have never owned one piece of the property I hunted
> previously, or currently.
> ...



 I think some people go into a property with higher expectations than the property can deliver.


----------



## tonyrittenhouse (Jan 5, 2015)

*Dmap*

I would like to see them use this DMAP on the national forest land located outside of the wma's in north Georgia. Do you think they will do camera surveys, population surveys etc... on the national forest land from county to county and use that to set the limit of deer that could be taken in each county on the public land. It would be nice if they did because that is really where the deer population needs the most help, on the public land. I don't see that happening and if it did there is no way to enforce it anyway.


----------



## DeoVindice (Jan 5, 2015)

Old Bart said:


> This ^
> DMAP will only help those seeking it, it's the ones that run the trigger and expect the DNR to fix the herds that create problems.



I understand what you're saying and don't disagree, but DNR can help the herds by implementing either sex days and reducing harvest limits. Of course they can't fix all the herd problems that are obviously varying from property to property, but they could sure help by reducing the doe harvest limit drastically with those simple solutions.


----------



## DeoVindice (Jan 5, 2015)

GameMgr270 said:


> I don't object to it but problem is, DMAP would primarily be utilized by hunters already applying some sort of management to their land and like stated above, can already be applied as liberally as desired to any land on your own. The areas needing it most would never participate. It would do nothing to prevent your neighbors from pulling the trigger every hunt.  You would end up with additional restrictions on your 1500 acre club and all of the 50-250 acre tracts bordering you would continue shooting and negate your efforts.



Exactly right. And those neighboring clubs are out there for most of us. DMAP seems like a waste of time to me unless you are hunting an unusually large tract of land. It is up to the individual clubs to make the necessary changes, and if they are lucky, convince their neighbors to do the same...Easier said than done, but quality overall herd management is gaining momentum in many hunters circles. At least I would like to think it is.

I plan to make the meeting in Rockmart on the 7th and look forward to hearing the opinions, numbers, and all arguments. I hope to make a somewhat educated vote with my ballot.


----------



## merc123 (Jan 5, 2015)

tonyrittenhouse said:


> Do you think they will do camera surveys, population surveys etc... on the national forest land from county to county and use that to set the limit of deer that could be taken in each county on the public land.




People would steal the cameras.


----------



## mtr3333 (Jan 5, 2015)

DeoVindice said:


> Exactly right. And those neighboring clubs are out there for most of us. DMAP seems like a waste of time to me unless you are hunting an unusually large tract of land. It is up to the individual clubs to make the necessary changes, and if they are lucky, convince their neighbors to do the same...Easier said than done, but quality overall herd management is gaining momentum in many hunters circles. At least I would like to think it is.
> 
> I plan to make the meeting in Rockmart on the 7th and look forward to hearing the opinions, numbers, and all arguments. I hope to make a somewhat educated vote with my ballot.



My quandary is with the people who are for DMAP. They demand freedom and smaller govt in one forum, while screaming for less freedom here by actually adding restrictions across the board then having a govt entity assess their situation before gaining permission to use more tags. The future of that plan will be the return of the early 1980s overpopulation and an overburdened permit system to respond. In this case, they would have to either increase the administration of the program or change the rules statewide. Suddenly the flexibility of the program stiffens. Given the differing hunter ideologies, many properties will be set up for worse scenarios than too few deer. What will look good to them because they are seeing numbers will motivate them to not ask for needed permits. It would happen.


----------



## The Longhunter (Jan 5, 2015)

I have to admit that I am of a mixed mind about this.

I hate to break forum rules, but I may have to actually see the proposal before I form an opinion.

What concerns me the most at this moment is the "voluntary" program.  So I have a large tract, and I "volunteer", and the biologist says that we need to take 2 does -- and that doesn't really suit our 15 members.  So we "volunteer" to not do it.  

Or we "volunteer" and the biologist says shoot 20 does, so we whack all 20 of those, and next year we "volunteer" out of the program.

Other than getting a lot of extra tags, I don't see any advantage to the large landowner that they can't do now.  And the extra tag issue can be addressed by allowing more hunters.


----------



## Old Bart (Jan 5, 2015)

DeoVindice said:


> I understand what you're saying and don't disagree, but DNR can help the herds by implementing either sex days and reducing harvest limits. Of course they can't fix all the herd problems that are obviously varying from property to property, but they could sure help by reducing the doe harvest limit drastically with those simple solutions.



The DNR cannot adjust the bag limits anymore, it's up to the State Legislature and Governor to sign the Bill. I agree the doe harvest should be cut back, but we're barking up the wrong tree asking the DNR to adjust the bag limits.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Jan 5, 2015)

*Dmap*

Okay Folks, let me try to clear up some things on DMAP.  It is currently only a concept we are exploring based on a recommendation in the deer plan, thus there are no program details that have been developed to share with you.  For this concept to proceed further it would need legislative support and public support.  If, and I repeat "IF", some movement were to occur on this concept, those details would be developed and presented to the public so each individual may form an opinion and voice their concerns, support, or lack thereof.  A lot of things would have to fall into place to implement such a program, and public acceptance/support is a big one.

If you want more information on how DMAPs operate, I recommend reading up on how some other states do it.  There are a lot of variations from state to state on these programs.

My apologies for the delayed response, I've been relieving the state of Florida of some of their trout.


----------



## spurrs and racks (Jan 5, 2015)

*killmaster*

please take time to remind the folks of the meeting tonight in Thomaston

MEETING TONIGHT IN THOMASTON GA FOR DNR REGULATIONS Southern Crescent Technical College, Room B132, 1533 Hwy 19 S,

s&r

bring plenty of crying tissue


----------



## C.Killmaster (Jan 5, 2015)

spurrs and racks said:


> please take time to remind the folks of the meeting tonight in Thomaston
> 
> MEETING TONIGHT IN THOMASTON GA FOR DNR REGULATIONS Southern Crescent Technical College, Room B132, 1533 Hwy 19 S,
> 
> ...



Thanks S&R, I'll post up a new thread as well.  I'll be there tonight and about half of the meetings this week.


----------



## merc123 (Jan 5, 2015)

Here is your chance to be heard scrub buck!  Tell Killmaster what you really think of his efforts in person.


----------



## Resica (Jan 5, 2015)

Be great if you could stream these meetings live for all the hunters to watch.


----------



## Scrub Buck (Jan 5, 2015)

Merc 123,

I have and do it every two years.  Make sure you are there to watch.  I'll be at that Dodge County meeting.  The closest to me.  The agenda is already set and it does not include discussion on DMAP.

CKILLMASTER,

States:

It is currently only a concept we are exploring based on a recommendation in the deer plan, thus there are no program details that have been developed to share with you..  

Trying to kill it as the thought entered his mind.  The program does not fit in states that already have liberal limits and pretty much an unlimited ability to harvest antlerless deer without unflawed harvest totals.  The harvest is already 60% antlerless.  You must want it to be 100%?


----------



## redwards (Jan 5, 2015)

elfiii said:


> .......
> As far as a 2 doe limit goes, as you and Charlie pointed out reducing the bag limit to 2 does would have little or no effect because 93% of the hunters in this state kill 2 does or less. To have a significant impact on the doe harvest the limit would have to be dropped to one, but that would probably be overkill as now we are talking cutting the doe harvest by half. Controlling either sex days is a much more subtle tool......


elfiii,
I could be wrong, but to state that reducing the bag limit to 2 does would have little or no effect may be an overstatement.
According to the 2013-2014 Harvest Summary Data 59.09% of all deer hunters killed zero (0) does. That means they had no impact on a reduction in the deer herd statewide.
Conversely that means 41.91% of all deer hunters did have an impact on a reduction of the deer herd statewide.

My point is, just over 4 of 10 hunters in the state had an impact on reducing the deer herd during the 2013-2014 season.
I have done some calculations, and by my calculations if the doe limit had been 2 does, then the total doe harvest would have been 29% less than the figure shown on the summary report.
I say this only to reemphasize the fact that every hunter in this state has the power to have a positive effect on the herd by relaxing their trigger finger.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 6, 2015)

redwards said:


> I have done some calculations, and by my calculations if the doe limit had been 2 does, then the total doe harvest would have been 29% less than the figure shown on the summary report.



The assumption is that the limit would have been honored by those who feel entitled to more.   Based on my experience with hunters (not scientific, at all), I would assume @ 50% compliance.  But, there may be more honest folks out there than I figure.


----------



## elfiii (Jan 6, 2015)

redwards said:


> elfiii,
> I could be wrong, but to state that reducing the bag limit to 2 does would have little or no effect may be an overstatement.
> According to the 2013-2014 Harvest Summary Data 59.09% of all deer hunters killed zero (0) does. That means they had no impact on a reduction in the deer herd statewide.
> Conversely that means 41.91% of all deer hunters did have an impact on a reduction of the deer herd statewide.
> ...



That's true but the bigger point is dropping the doe limit to 2 does would have a dramatic impact on the number of does killed in some areas of the state and none in others depending on the local population and the local impact might be too much or not enough which would create further imbalances in the population. For instance, the Piedmont region probably has the highest hunter density. Accordingly reducing the doe limit to 2 will likely have a minimal impact in that region. There will still likely be too many does killed there simply because of the number of hunters killing 2 does. Reducing it to 2 in the Mountain or Ridge and Valley regions would likely have little impact since there are fewer hunters and lower deer population numbers in those regions. That's why bag limits by themselves are a crude tool for managing. Controlling either sex days is key to the equation.

See the graphs here:

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=8484484&postcount=56

That's still not the most effective method. Managing at the county level for bag limit and either sex days would be best but again the money isn't there for that right now. Maybe in the future?

Ultimately as you pointed out the trigger puller is the one who actually controls the population. Regardless of what WRD does the trigger puller can override them either way. Until deer hunters as a whole start putting the resource first and their desire to kill a deer last not much is going to change and we'll all keep on bickering about the problem we are the cause of.


----------



## spurrs and racks (Jan 6, 2015)

*I don't discount the logic.............*

Why all the crying about the deer limits?

Just asking............

s&r


----------

