Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushrat
Yes and no. I simply see reducing the doe tags from two down to one especially after being told for several years they need to cut back as insurance that we have enough does left after hunting season that if there is a bad winter that kills say 50% of the remaining post hunting season doe population that still leaves enough does to fawn in the spring to at least sustain a rebuildable population as opposed to a collapsed population that may take a decade to recover.
I think the populations of our game animals needs to be monitored much closer than they currently are and tag numbers need to be adjusted accordingly every year in a more real time response.
Game department always seem to be years too late in responding to whats happening with the population be it the need to cut back on tags or to issue more tags in response to a population that exceeds carrying capacity limits. They can't seem to make a decision until its too late. They seem to be the last to know whats going on then stand there with their mouth open catching flies instead of doing something.
|
We're both agreed here, which is why I think snowfall could be used. If you've had a string of easy winters and then you get a bad one perhaps no supplementals should be issued. If you are getting hard-ish winters regularly then one tag would likely be appropriate. If you've had 3 or more easy winters then more tags, if not beneficial, would likely not make much difference in the long run.
This of course is not a perfect system, but its a hell of a lot better than what we've got, and it allows them to work off of readily available data that is already being collected without any expense to F&W. Its also simple enough the whole thing could pretty much be automated.
Linear Mode
