Re: cordTired of hearing it.....
I am with you shade. What some people, who are all ra ra that the pgc has a handle on deer polulation for the whole state, fail to realize is that the PGC does not have a handle on the whole state. The DPSM in some areas is way below the carrying capacity of the land, some places it is balanced, still some places with too many (very limited areas IMO).
What would be nice would be if there was a way for sportsmen to get some type of feedback from the PGC regarding the deer density in a specific geographical area. Maybe there is, and I don't know about it. However, we still have to realize that under the current WMU's, the areas are too large to control the harvest for a subsection of the area. For overall HR, the units were suitable. Now that we have accomplished HR (most places), there is no way the herd will remain even remotely balanced across a WMU. Going back to the county map, may not be the answer either, but it would at least give a smaller area (easier to control harvest) to work with. If they did go back to the county map, I would like to see a biologist assess every county at least once every 2 or three years, after each assessment, they should hold a public meeting in the county to review the assessment with the public and allow input/questions. These assessments should be on record and reviewable via the PGC web page. Maybe something along the same line is available now, I don't know, if it is, a generalization of deer populations on an entire WMU is not good enough IMO.
I don't mind changes, as long as the people in charge realize that not every change is going to be a success. And when a change is not successful or even if it has accomplished the original goal, I want those same people to man up and admit it, then propose another change to fix it or in the case where it has met it's goal, to relinquish that change. Problem is, nobody wants to admit to a anything less than a 100% success (no matter the stage).