Deer Tag Proposal

[porkchop 13]

No.

I've been busy working on food plots, and already pointed you were to go look.

I looked where you pointed me to and I gave my example as to why that approach isn't valid. Now if the example I gave was far fetched then we wouldn't have been managing our land like that for past years and be so successful now with our deer herds on land that was once over hunted by the last group that had it.

[PBiz]

What's wrong with 8 deer, no more than 4 does?

[Strick9]

Not a thing.

[PJ1012]

What's wrong with 8 deer, no more than 4 does?

Nothing is wrong with it if you don't mind the farmers having to kill 3 times more with depredation tags in the summer and if you wanna play dodge a deer every night you drive down the highway..... At least that's how it would be around here. I had to slow down 5 times for deer last night coming back from the lake cormorant hunting and that isn't counting the countless ones that were far enough off the shoulder that I didn't have to slow down for. Like I said, no deer problem around here! Besides we have enough deer claims at the office as it is now!!

[Bigtimber2]

If a neighbor wants to kill 12 does on 20 acres what's the problem?

[porkchop 13]

Why should a neighbor want to shoot 12 does on 20 acres

[Tuffy]

So many of these conversations ultimately come down to wealth and the entitlement that comes with it. The issue really should be what is THE level of deer population and harvest that SC can, and will, support. Then, how do we allocate that harvest among all of those with differing abilities, opportunities, and effort?

The first part should be easy, but the second part keeps confusing even that. There ARE fewer deer than there has been in the past, even in the Low Country. We may, or may not, be down to the publicly-acceptable (ie. farmers/drivers/hunters) population level and that level really needs to be decided and accepted if it's even possible. That responsibility falls on DNR but leaves them with the usual political problem that threatens their very purpose.

DNR has traditionally been the voice-of-wildlife AND the hunters. Now, even if the internal politics of the hunters wasn't so horrible, the pressures from other public sectors naturally is often in opposition to the best interests of the wildlife and the hunters. Those two would both benefit from MORE, but the rest of the population and interests want LESS. It's pretty clear that DNR is, and would always be, a POOR advocate for their traditional stakeholders if they try to satisfy every interest. That is NOT their charter. In trying to do that, they are losing the support of many hunters and failing to promote the pure (population) interest of the wildlife.

Of course, "hunters" and "wildlife" now have a new internal opposition, the wealthy landowner, and he is often in a position to influence the discussion in ways that would ultimately result in less hunting and less wildlife in the state. As long as their own populations were sufficient and their ability to harvest that population wasn't limited, they'd much prefer to just debate among themselves the relative merits of breeding, buying, and harvesting their own "crop" in ways that best satisfy their own views.

That is even more obvious with waterfowl, but is the obvious current path for deer. Of course, they need to have some outlet for their less-well-off peers, but it must not affect them and is best done in a very controlled way.....at some distance. The poor hunter, on the other hand, sees his opportunities going away and often either reacts badly or moves on to other interests. Both weaken the overall position of the sport of hunting and strengthen those that would like to see it in the past, including the wealthy landowner.

It really is a difficult choice between equal harvest allocation and "fair" harvest allocation and NOT as simple as my obvious resentment of the rich man's perspective may make it seem. If you work to afford it and invest the time and resources, how could you not deserve some reward beyond that of those that do not contribute as much? Then again, how do we, in this country, agree to legislate an unequal entitlement? We're going to have to deal with both questions and it's not going to be easy.

IMO, the law has to be flat and equal for all. You can harvest X does and Y bucks and that's all there is to it. If you have greater access and put in money and time, your reward is in the ease of your success, the satisfaction of your success, and, perhaps, the QUALITY of your success. If you don't have those benefits, your success is going to have to come in other ways within the bounds of legally and socially-acceptable practices. Skill and perseverance are going to be more important to you.

Now, that's a lot of BS in some ways, but it boils down to the answer, IMO. Despite the legitimate pressure of other interests, DNR has the duty to promote the population and establish the level of harvest needed to maintain that population. The limit of their responsibility is simply Quality or Quantity. Without question, to focus on Quality would mean the decline of interest in legal hunting and turning the sport over to a small segment of their true stakeholders that would not include the deer themselves.

So, I'd have to conclude that DNR needs to promote the population of deer and reduce the harvest of does in the face of a declining population. They are NOT in the business of QDM and must leave that in the unsubsidized, and unassisted, hands of landowners. They must NOT support policies that would obviously result in both declining populations and unequal harvest allocation between individuals based on wealth and derived opportunities as the current proposals surely do.

I'm not sure that 4 & 4 is THE solution, but it has to be a simple one. It may even be different in different GZs IF there is enough data to make those decisions, but it must not be purely political as we have seen with the turkeys for so long. How many deer do we have? How many deer can the habitat (at some level of management NOT below the GZ level) support? How many deer of what gender can we harvest to obtain/maintain that level? How many hunters are there and what is their average harvest? That's all there is to it. The trash that we are seeing and discussing is because those questions haven't been answered and that leaves everyone posturing for their own best interests and DNR allowing themselves to be sucked into it over and over and over.

[Sparkleberry Ridge Runner]

So many of these conversations ultimately come down to wealth and the entitlement that comes with it. The issue really should be what is THE level of deer population and harvest that SC can, and will, support. Then, how do we allocate that harvest among all of those with differing abilities, opportunities, and effort?

The first part should be easy, but the second part keeps confusing even that. There ARE fewer deer than there has been in the past, even in the Low Country. We may, or may not, be down to the publicly-acceptable (ie. farmers/drivers/hunters) population level and that level really needs to be decided and accepted if it's even possible. That responsibility falls on DNR but leaves them with the usual political problem that threatens their very purpose.

DNR has traditionally been the voice-of-wildlife AND the hunters. Now, even if the internal politics of the hunters wasn't so horrible, the pressures from other public sectors naturally is often in opposition to the best interests of the wildlife and the hunters. Those two would both benefit from MORE, but the rest of the population and interests want LESS. It's pretty clear that DNR is, and would always be, a POOR advocate for their traditional stakeholders if they try to satisfy every interest. That is NOT their charter. In trying to do that, they are losing the support of many hunters and failing to promote the pure (population) interest of the wildlife.

Of course, "hunters" and "wildlife" now have a new internal opposition, the wealthy landowner, and he is often in a position to influence the discussion in ways that would ultimately result in less hunting and less wildlife in the state. As long as their own populations were sufficient and their ability to harvest that population wasn't limited, they'd much prefer to just debate among themselves the relative merits of breeding, buying, and harvesting their own "crop" in ways that best satisfy their own views.

That is even more obvious with waterfowl, but is the obvious current path for deer. Of course, they need to have some outlet for their less-well-off peers, but it must not affect them and is best done in a very controlled way.....at some distance. The poor hunter, on the other hand, sees his opportunities going away and often either reacts badly or moves on to other interests. Both weaken the overall position of the sport of hunting and strengthen those that would like to see it in the past, including the wealthy landowner.

It really is a difficult choice between equal harvest allocation and "fair" harvest allocation and NOT as simple as my obvious resentment of the rich man's perspective may make it seem. If you work to afford it and invest the time and resources, how could you not deserve some reward beyond that of those that do not contribute as much? Then again, how do we, in this country, agree to legislate an unequal entitlement? We're going to have to deal with both questions and it's not going to be easy.

IMO, the law has to be flat and equal for all. You can harvest X does and Y bucks and that's all there is to it. If you have greater access and put in money and time, your reward is in the ease of your success, the satisfaction of your success, and, perhaps, the QUALITY of your success. If you don't have those benefits, your success is going to have to come in other ways within the bounds of legally and socially-acceptable practices. Skill and perseverance are going to be more important to you.

Now, that's a lot of BS in some ways, but it boils down to the answer, IMO. Despite the legitimate pressure of other interests, DNR has the duty to promote the population and establish the level of harvest needed to maintain that population. The limit of their responsibility is simply Quality or Quantity. Without question, to focus on Quality would mean the decline of interest in legal hunting and turning the sport over to a small segment of their true stakeholders that would not include the deer themselves.

So, I'd have to conclude that DNR needs to promote the population of deer and reduce the harvest of does in the face of a declining population. They are NOT in the business of QDM and must leave that in the unsubsidized, and unassisted, hands of landowners. They must NOT support policies that would obviously result in both declining populations and unequal harvest allocation between individuals based on wealth and derived opportunities as the current proposals surely do.

I'm not sure that 4 & 4 is THE solution, but it has to be a simple one. It may even be different in different GZs IF there is enough data to make those decisions, but it must not be purely political as we have seen with the turkeys for so long. How many deer do we have? How many deer can the habitat (at some level of management NOT below the GZ level) support? How many deer of what gender can we harvest to obtain/maintain that level? How many hunters are there and what is their average harvest? That's all there is to it. The trash that we are seeing and discussing is because those questions haven't been answered and that leaves everyone posturing for their own best interests and DNR allowing themselves to be sucked into it over and over and over.

Good post Tuffy.
Ruth pointed out several times that the current deer populations are below the high numbers in the early 90s. He has also pointed out several times that our current numbers are pretty much ideal for SC and that we do not need to increase nor decrease our total population (other than a few isolated areas). He has also stated, and is pretty evident given the above information, that a change is for quality deer. DNR does not want to change our total deer numbers. They simply want to restructure those numbers to a 1 to 1 ratio in a pipedream hope that we will have record class bucks. There are many ways to maintain our current populations while still having limits (8 tags of which only 3 can be for does) and as you pointed out, those who which to work toward quality have the freedom to do so on their land.

[Catdaddy]

The limit of their responsibility is simply Quality or Quantity. Without question, to focus on Quality would mean the decline of interest in legal hunting and turning the sport over to a small segment of their true stakeholders that would not include the deer themselves.

So, I'd have to conclude that DNR needs to promote the population of deer and reduce the harvest of does in the face of a declining population. They are NOT in the business of QDM and must leave that in the unsubsidized, and unassisted, hands of landowners. They must NOT support policies that would obviously result in both declining populations and unequal harvest allocation between individuals based on wealth and derived opportunities as the current proposals surely do.

I'm not sure that 4 & 4 is THE solution, but it has to be a simple one. It may even be different in different GZs IF there is enough data to make those decisions, but it must not be purely political as we have seen with the turkeys for so long. How many deer do we have? How many deer can the habitat (at some level of management NOT below the GZ level) support? How many deer of what gender can we harvest to obtain/maintain that level? How many hunters are there and what is their average harvest? That's all there is to it.

No proposal the DNR has ever discussed, has focused on growing big antlers, like the naysayers have screamed. There's a big difference between advancing the average age of the herd by 1 year and trophy management. IMHO, the DNR was simply trying to get the herd closer to what it would be in an natural environment, which is a far cry from the "shoot ever buck" plan we have now. You have to look no further than this website to hear people that think having a herd with 90% 1 1/2 year olds being a healthy herd and the way its suppose to be.



Statewide four and four would have worked well for the herds health except there are folks that seem to think that one plan can't manage the whole state.


A better solution would have been to go with 4 and 4 starting in Charleston county and moving northwest to the Santee Cooper lakes all the way to the Congaree River at Columbia. Throw Williamsburg County in as well and give the rest of the state 3 bucks and 3 does.


That would have been much better than what we are faced with in committee.

[Calibogue]

Catdaddy, you're pissin' up a rope with this crowd!

[led0321]

I have followed for my own amusement.

[JJ1965]

So many of these conversations ultimately come down to wealth and the entitlement that comes with it. The issue really should be what is THE level of deer population and harvest that SC can, and will, support. Then, how do we allocate that harvest among all of those with differing abilities, opportunities, and effort?

The first part should be easy, but the second part keeps confusing even that. There ARE fewer deer than there has been in the past, even in the Low Country. We may, or may not, be down to the publicly-acceptable (ie. farmers/drivers/hunters) population level and that level really needs to be decided and accepted if it's even possible. That responsibility falls on DNR but leaves them with the usual political problem that threatens their very purpose.

DNR has traditionally been the voice-of-wildlife AND the hunters. Now, even if the internal politics of the hunters wasn't so horrible, the pressures from other public sectors naturally is often in opposition to the best interests of the wildlife and the hunters. Those two would both benefit from MORE, but the rest of the population and interests want LESS. It's pretty clear that DNR is, and would always be, a POOR advocate for their traditional stakeholders if they try to satisfy every interest. That is NOT their charter. In trying to do that, they are losing the support of many hunters and failing to promote the pure (population) interest of the wildlife.

Of course, "hunters" and "wildlife" now have a new internal opposition, the wealthy landowner, and he is often in a position to influence the discussion in ways that would ultimately result in less hunting and less wildlife in the state. As long as their own populations were sufficient and their ability to harvest that population wasn't limited, they'd much prefer to just debate among themselves the relative merits of breeding, buying, and harvesting their own "crop" in ways that best satisfy their own views.

That is even more obvious with waterfowl, but is the obvious current path for deer. Of course, they need to have some outlet for their less-well-off peers, but it must not affect them and is best done in a very controlled way.....at some distance. The poor hunter, on the other hand, sees his opportunities going away and often either reacts badly or moves on to other interests. Both weaken the overall position of the sport of hunting and strengthen those that would like to see it in the past, including the wealthy landowner.

It really is a difficult choice between equal harvest allocation and "fair" harvest allocation and NOT as simple as my obvious resentment of the rich man's perspective may make it seem. If you work to afford it and invest the time and resources, how could you not deserve some reward beyond that of those that do not contribute as much? Then again, how do we, in this country, agree to legislate an unequal entitlement? We're going to have to deal with both questions and it's not going to be easy.

IMO, the law has to be flat and equal for all. You can harvest X does and Y bucks and that's all there is to it. If you have greater access and put in money and time, your reward is in the ease of your success, the satisfaction of your success, and, perhaps, the QUALITY of your success. If you don't have those benefits, your success is going to have to come in other ways within the bounds of legally and socially-acceptable practices. Skill and perseverance are going to be more important to you.

Now, that's a lot of BS in some ways, but it boils down to the answer, IMO. Despite the legitimate pressure of other interests, DNR has the duty to promote the population and establish the level of harvest needed to maintain that population. The limit of their responsibility is simply Quality or Quantity. Without question, to focus on Quality would mean the decline of interest in legal hunting and turning the sport over to a small segment of their true stakeholders that would not include the deer themselves.

So, I'd have to conclude that DNR needs to promote the population of deer and reduce the harvest of does in the face of a declining population. They are NOT in the business of QDM and must leave that in the unsubsidized, and unassisted, hands of landowners. They must NOT support policies that would obviously result in both declining populations and unequal harvest allocation between individuals based on wealth and derived opportunities as the current proposals surely do.

I'm not sure that 4 & 4 is THE solution, but it has to be a simple one. It may even be different in different GZs IF there is enough data to make those decisions, but it must not be purely political as we have seen with the turkeys for so long. How many deer do we have? How many deer can the habitat (at some level of management NOT below the GZ level) support? How many deer of what gender can we harvest to obtain/maintain that level? How many hunters are there and what is their average harvest? That's all there is to it. The trash that we are seeing and discussing is because those questions haven't been answered and that leaves everyone posturing for their own best interests and DNR allowing themselves to be sucked into it over and over and over.

Tuffy, you are far too intelligent and articulate to be hanging out with this crowd. Seriously.

[PJ1012]

^^Exactly what I was thinking as I was reading this!! haha^^

[Catdaddy]

Tuffy, you are far too intelligent and articulate to be hanging out with this crowd. Seriously.

^^Exactly what I was thinking as I was reading this!! haha^^

You can never trust anything a serious turkey hunter says........ever.

[Tuffy]

Doesn't matter what words/calls a good turkey hunter uses. It's the RHYTHM and inflection that matters.

[Tuffy]

Cat....You are exactly right, but DNR and the legislators have taken steps to make it appear that they are trying to appease and help those Quality-focused folks. If nothing else, that is the source of much of the convoluted approach in this excuse for a proposal. Worries me that they might think that just having the tags and saying that we are no longer a "No Limit" state is enough to satisfy those with concerns about the Quantity. Increasing the number of does and leaving upward flexibility for specific land areas darned sure isn't expressing any concern about the population level. Charles would say that it gives them the flexibility to LOWER it later, but nobody can really believe that they will be allowed to do that. The point of implementing the tags was their best, and only, chance at that....

[uscnoklahoma]

No proposal the DNR has ever discussed, has focused on growing big antlers, like the naysayers have screamed. There's a big difference between advancing the average age of the herd by 1 year and trophy management. IMHO, the DNR was simply trying to get the herd closer to what it would be in an natural environment, which is a far cry from the "shoot ever buck" plan we have now. You have to look no further than this website to hear people that think having a herd with 90% 1 1/2 year olds being a healthy herd and the way its suppose to be.



Statewide four and four would have worked well for the herds health except there are folks that seem to think that one plan can't manage the whole state.


A better solution would have been to go with 4 and 4 starting in Charleston county and moving northwest to the Santee Cooper lakes all the way to the Congaree River at Columbia. Throw Williamsburg County in as well and give the rest of the state 3 bucks and 3 does.


That would have been much better than what we are faced with in committee.

Bingo....we have winners. Catdaddy and Tuffy.