New DMU question
binellishtr
Posts: 8,623 Admiral
I have a question for the Dmtag'ers of the State.
If FWC is going to form these DMU's, what is the carrying capacity for each of these DMU's they are creating?
Also, how do they plan to gather this data from this statement for each DMU below?
DMUs will give us the framework for gathering data, including harvest data, at the local level.
If FWC is going to form these DMU's, what is the carrying capacity for each of these DMU's they are creating?
Also, how do they plan to gather this data from this statement for each DMU below?
DMUs will give us the framework for gathering data, including harvest data, at the local level.
Replies
I though you said you had a different question. I swear its like talking to a wall. You ask a question and get an answer. Then you ask the same question again. I don't know you from Adam, but I'm beginning to think you might be a lawyer. Your odd ball questions seem to make a little more sense under that theory. They like to make like they dont understand, when really they do, they just enjoy the game of trying to represent something the way they want it to to be viewed, regardless of the actual truth.
As for part two of your question, right now, the only plan they have for obtaining information is the new survey. they already did this with Zone B as the entire zone will be one DMU because of its limited size and similarity of terrain throughout. What happened with the survey this year is that any responses where Zone B was identified as a hunt location for the respondent, that person was called by a survey taker and asked more in depth questions about their hunting activity, success, days hunted, etc. so better and more complete information could be compiled.
With a harvest reporting and tagging system, follow up calls would become unwarranted as the system would provide for more specific harvest information.
I had you pissed off at hello.
My original question for your clarification Dog,was why do we need DMU's?
Don't you think they should understand the DMU's they are creating before they create them?Or just wing it like they've done in the past?
That is not pointless Chuck,and your saying it's not relevant or important to understand carrying capacity on a DMU,which is absolutley crazy,weather it will be managed for Bucks,or herd.
Thats funny. You think thats a complement. You're on a roll!
Your original question was already answered in the initial string, albeit not exhaustively.
To Chuck's point.... its true, knowing what the actual carrying capacity is really isn't too important..... what is important is to understand where the herd density is at in relation to the habitat's ability to support it. If you reach or exceed (Chuck's right about how often it is exceeded in FL) the habitats's ability to support the density of deer present, it will be pretty plain to see. Both in the deer and in the habitat. Stakeholder input is one way that they would initially receive this information though.
Withthatbeingsaid.. carrying capacity may be over or under utilized on a particular ranch or DMU. Characterizing a DMU goes well beyond how many deer are on it but factors in as many things as predators,nutrients,and competing animals. I'm sure I am missing more
My motives are simple,if you've kept up for any period of time you will know 2 things about me.
A. I am all about 100% access.
B. I hate quota/special opp,and any other rules that limit our ability to wake up during hunting season,grab your kid and a gun and go out hunting.
The overall concepts in the link are eerily similar to what the FWC is working toward. Imagine that! The information in the link describes a state deer management program that is taylored to the needs and circumstances found in that state, but the underlying concepts are same as what you would generally find in most state deer management plans. I thought it was particularly interesting to see that they rely heavily on surveys to measure both deer numbers and regional preferences for increasing or decreasing densities. I guess the FWC really isn't the only one out there doing that! Whodathunkit?
Then you'll be happy to learn that DMUs dont even speak to access. They will neigher increase or decrease it. Thats not their purpose. They wont increase or decrease quots/special opportunity formats on WMAs either. They do have the potential of increasing the ability to just grab your kid and go hunting though (ex. increased doe days in more productive habitats that can sustain a higher doe harvest than currently provided for).
All the normal ways. Burning when possible, roller chopping, mowing, herbicide where appropriate, timber thinning, etc.
^ THIS
I have to give Chuck and Newton compliments on this one. No matter how much they know binnelli-sheister is just stirring the pot, they take the time to come on here and give the best answer as they understand it at least for other folks to read (those that may really want to understand something).
Commendable goals but I think you take the wrong tact at getting what you want. Sitting back and throwing bombs will not get you where you want to go. Supporting a tag or reporting system and then working with the FWC and the data to open up access (which may require harvest limits in some cases) would be the way to go on this IMHO. Having data that forces the Feds and WMDs to own up to the fact that their lands need or could be hunted would also help. But any change in your eyes is a bad change. Wake up, it will never be the same as it was 30 years ago. Either change with the times or be destined to be a dinosaur.
So what your saying is DMU's can ONLY increase hunting opportunities in Florida,and never decrease hunting opportunities?
Do you guys have a prescribed plan for all these habitat management practices you speak of?
Is it a vital part of the success of your habitat with regards to deer management?
BTW, do you manage for Trophy Bucks,or a healthy herd?
BIG CYPRESS
279
It would not be true to say that DMUs would ONLY increase hunting opportunities. For example, if the FWC increased doe days in an area because the stakeholders there were asking for lowered densities, they would not leave them in place indefinitely. If the population responded to the regulation change by decreasing to the desired level, then it wouldn't make sense to continue to have expanded opportunities would it? Today they manage to the lowest common denominator (sorry for the math reference), because they know that it wont degrade the resource in areas where the habitat is most limiting, even if more opportunity could be provided in other areas. So in all areas you could expect opportunities to be at least as abundant as they are today. In more productive areas, they would be able to provide increased opportunities if surveys showed that populations and stakeholder desires warranted it.
We all know that data is crap. AND if we had a reporting system last year, they would know that data is crap. Results from a true reporting system would be data no one could mess with (the results are the results). That's what you seem to miss... :banghead
I had you pissed off at hello.
Unless your talking about runnning thru the addition lands on foot and tying ribbons on their heads?
I had you pissed off at hello.
Let me try to explain slowly. If other areas around the addition lands where hunting is allowed had actual hunting success rates showing more than 150 deer were shot for a comparable size land mass, it would be easy to dispute their findings that only 150 deer existed in that area. If we had many years of data from a tag or reporting system and the year-to-year data showed more deer were being taken, one could easily say the herd was doing well and expanding. If the multi-year data showed hunters were shooting less deer each year, we would know the herd is in trouble and likely getting smaller. A tag and reporting system would give data that could not be disputed (other than some minor adjustments for non-reporting and poaching) and therefore we could extrapolate information to similar areas where hunting is not allowed. See how that works??
PERFECT example of someone who knows nothing about something,but yet has a lot to offer.
Get factual Dorado,it is there for the taking...then you can excrapulate whatever your hearts desire.
Heard the indians put up a fence because they didnt like the competition,but I bet he's got plenty
I understand enough. I may not live there but I've read about the issues and all the threads here and I think Chuck said it best already:
The FWC cannot control the Feds. The FWC needs enough large scale data to help keep the Feds in check so as the pather moves north we have data to show the changes that occur are due to panther overpopulation. Otherwise, we won't stand a chance in keeping hunting where we have it now, nevermind opening up new lands or lands we used to hunt. The FWC also needs to show they are trying to manage the herd so the Feds can't just set policy on non-Fed land by saying the FWC doesn't have a clue (all in the name of the panther). DMUs and a reporting system would help in that effort. The Feds, in cohoots with the envirowackos, pushing the panther and other endagered species agendas will ultimately kill hunting for us, not the FWC. If you can't see that handwriting on the wall then nothing you write on your little computer screen is going to make a difference. We need hard and fast data or we don't stand a chance in the future against the antis.
BUT Data can be used For You ,.... And Against You.
Will Politics be used against Us or For Us. Sometimes the Winds can change . And as SWFH knows, Dollars drive the Wind.
You think it,s bad now ..Wait till theres Panthers in Ocala and Osceola , And every WMA up to the State Line.
I know how the Good ole Boys will handle to many Panthers. But FWC under pressure from Serria club , Diversity Group , ect.ect will fold to the Pressure .Thats what I,m afraid of.