For Deer Hunters- DMTAG meeting

[N. Cook]

The FWC Stakeholder Deer group met yesterday in Ocala. Basically, the Zones and Seasons are about where they are going to be and now the work is moving to a Tagging (or Harvest Recording) System for all deer taken in Florida.

There will be a series of Public Workshops across the state in April and May for comments on one or more proposals that the FWC will be presenting.

The system will be a "phone in" or "computer report" concept with an allowed time to make your report of killing a deer to a web site or phone number where a "confirmation" number will be given to you to record on your "log". The "log" will be one of several proposals, all of which have the hunter keeping a record of harvests on a "log" or "tag list" which has to be completed before the animal is moved and the information reported (24...48 hours allowed?), and then the assigned number written next to the initial entry....

The "log" will probably be on your annual $5 Deer Permit now required starting next season....you simply list your takes on the Permit and call them in as they occur, giving the Customer Number on your license (and permit). "Excempt" deer hunters will need to get a FREE version of the Deer Permit using their FWC Customer Number to use as their log.

The next item will be the setting of the lines for the Deer Management Units within the Zones where the data from the TAG system will be utilized to determine the best method to "maintain a robust resource" for "hunter satisfaction"....Not that DMUs will have different seasons, but probably the distribution of doe permits will be the major feature within a DMU a hunter will notice.

Last, with data collected, statewide bags, with Zone adjustments and DMU doe harvest targets, will need to be reviewed. This is a critical program and the FWC staff is set to began Public Meetings on the subject as early as April to begin to lay the groundwork.

I will be glad to answer any questions in a more detail way.

[novaalex]

Newton, who else attended this meeting on behalf of hunters? Are you serving in any capacity or simply attending on behalf of UW-F or the Future of Hunting in Florida? Who is heading this project for FWC?

[N. Cook]

This is a standing FWC Stakeholder advisory group with members by appointment (and vote within the group). It is headed by the FWC Deer Manager and run by a U of F based facilitator. Meetings are usually about six a year, but more often if needed. There is a corresponding FWC staff group with a liason.

Four members of the group also happen to be UW-F Members.

Chuck Echenique (a guide and news writer)
Newton Cook (Future of Hunting in Florida Board of Directors)
Wayne Davis (public hunter on public land)
Byron Maharrey (FSCA)

Other members represent private land owners, dog hunters, traditional bow hunters, bow hunters, primitive weapons hunters, private land hunters (lease) etc...about 13 altogether.

We are writing a ten year plan for Deer Management in Florida and implementing the various parts in the process. The group has been meeting almost three years and expect another two before the elements are in place.

The first element is revised Zones and Season Dates within the Zones. In time Deer Management Units will be drawn inside the Zones to allow more targeted actions.

The second element is a TAG system so that data can be obtained to help write the regulations based on science.

The last element will be a revision of bags and the make up of bags based on the data gathered and the habitats within the DMUs.

All initial proposals are put out in Public Meetings across the state. Final proposals are then put together and presented to the FWC Commissioners for their vote.

[novaalex]

Do you or any of the other members have any kind of vote? How is that you influence the process?

[N. Cook]

Yes, there must be a quorum and there are occasional "votes", but most is accomplished by consensus. Our group can only "advise" as the FWC staff will put together the programs...however, as was proven during the WMA Quota Hunt issue, if the FWC staff does not at least reasonably follow the Stakeholders group's recommendation a "uprising" at the next FWC Commission meeting can successfully bring about more "cooperation" and a revised plan.....

The Commissioners respect the folks who have traveled four hours one way for almost every month over two to three years to attend and participate in these meetings....

Incidentally, we are guided by our intention to: "Have a robust resource (herd) and an improved level of hunter satisfaction".

[Lawrence]

As a deer hunter who participates in QDM already(100 or better)...how does this help other than make this one more "obstacle" to enjoying a relaxing deer hunt?

Do you feel the data will actually be used to improve the deer stock? Really doesn't sound like a big deal but just asking a legitimate question.

It is a concern that it will be nothing more than one more item that will make it more frustrating for Johnny Lunchpail.:)
.

[novaalex]

Very interesting Newton, Im surprised the ECC is not more involved.

[N. Cook]

Barbara Jean is on the group, rarely attends and Byron acts as proxy.

Regarding the other comment....Florida is in the dark ages of deer management without a clue how many deer exist, by age or sex by habitat or area, ie county or other unit. The FWC has been operating with a few surveys, some WMA check station records with only ONE permanent Deer Management person for the state.

Deer hunting being the most popular of all hunting and the reason most people buy hunting licenses!

A lot of opinions, "complaints" and otherwise directed at the FWC get very nebuluos answers because there is no "science".

The new $5 Deer "stamp" will help with a couple of more biologists and some better reporting....including the cost of the TAG system (which will have a phone in and web site method of reporting each deer taken, by sex, points, location, etc.) This will allow the Deer Management Units to be better managed.... a lot of private land is considered relatively well managed due to the conservation practices of the large land owners and leasing, public land needs "help". However, all game belongs to the "people" not the landowner so a system has to apply to all.

The harvest record will help with the establishment of whether or not to issue additional doe tags in a DMU....

In time, the harvest record will help determine the level of reduction the herd can take each year in a ZONE and maintain the "robust" status to insure good hunter satisfaction. This will allow science based bag limits.

QDM is good for a lot of private land with controlled access. Stricter rules for points are common. Public Land serves a different purpose and getting the maximum numbers of hunters out in the field with a reasonable chance to take a legal animal becomes the goal.

Incidentally, meetings are open to the public....usually at the FWC Office in Ocala.

[Lawrence]

Barbara Jean is on the group, rarely attends and Byron acts as proxy.

Regarding the other comment....Florida is in the dark ages of deer management without a clue how many deer exist, by age or sex by habitat or area, ie county or other unit. The FWC has been operating with a few surveys, some WMA check station records with only ONE permanent Deer Management person for the state.

Deer hunting being the most popular of all hunting and the reason most people buy hunting licenses!

A lot of opinions, "complaints" and otherwise directed at the FWC get very nebuluos answers because there is no "science".

The new $5 Deer "stamp" will help with a couple of more biologists and some better reporting....including the cost of the TAG system (which will have a phone in and web site method of reporting each deer taken, by sex, points, location, etc.) This will allow the Deer Management Units to be better managed.... a lot of private land is considered relatively well managed due to the conservation practices of the large land owners and leasing, public land needs "help". However, all game belongs to the "people" not the landowner so a system has to apply to all.

The harvest record will help with the establishment of whether or not to issue additional doe tags in a DMU....

In time, the harvest record will help determine the level of reduction the herd can take each year in a ZONE and maintain the "robust" status to insure good hunter satisfaction. This will allow science based bag limits.

QDM is good for a lot of private land with controlled access. Stricter rules for points are common. Public Land serves a different purpose and getting the maximum numbers of hunters out in the field with a reasonable chance to take a legal animal becomes the goal.

Incidentally, meetings are open to the public....usually at the FWC Office in Ocala.

Awesome reply and certainly when I hunted areas that were near dog clubs the constant issue was not allowing baby bucks to grow. I will pass on this information to the real deer hunters in my club. Although I have hunted deer for quite some time I consider myself a duck hunter who hunts deer when there are no ducks around. That was quite often last year but I digress...

Compared to Kansas and Illinois we are in the dark ages with deer management. Yes we do not have the forage or nutrients like other states but there is no doubt we would have bigger deer if "it's brown and its down" did not apply. 4 on a side would do wonders to most counties.

[Blast & Cast]

Four on one side and thinning out the doe population would make a big difference. There is a lot of genetical retarded inbreed bucks running around our parts.

[novaalex]

That proxy stuff is quite interesting, you should do that for the Board. Like if Swilli cant make it to a meeting he could appoint Chuck(random member) to vote for him.

[Lawrence]

Four on one side and thinning out the doe population would make a big difference. There is a lot of genetical retarded inbreed bucks running around our parts.

Pretty funny and really true. However how do you tell Johnny Lunchbucket to only shoot 4 on a side or retards???:)

JL is all about ground checks.

[N. Cook]

I have long been a proponent for regulations on Private Land being different than Public Land allowing private land owners to "manage" within broader parameters. This may well work out somehow within the DMU rules and the WMA regs...(as it already does as WMAs are often totally different that normal state regs).

Parts of FL in the NW need doe thinning....other parts need more "protection"...but until you get real data and not just "what I see on my land" "or "I see a lot of does and no bucks when I hunt" reports. Unfortunately, that is about all the FWC has had and we have got to do better. This is good, as when regulations are written with scant info they tend to be very conservative in "bags" as a precaution....Good info means more confidence in setting limits.

[N. Cook]

Next meeting is this Friday.....anyone with questions or comments?

This is a public meeting at the same location in Ocala, the FWC offices.

[N. Cook]

The meeting was mostly a "back and forth" between those who are totally opposed to cross bow hunting during Bow Season and Staff who are trying to placate pressure to add the cross bows.....

Some progress on the TAG system as proposals were clarified on how it could operate.....major point is it seems most want a 48 hour time allowed before the hunter "reports" a harvest...Staff seems to want a shorter time.

More questions are coming about on the really early start of the seasons in the South Zone proposed to "catch the rut" better. It seems starting hunting in July, although that is near the best part of a very mish-mash rut time, is not as attractive to the polled hunters as being able to hunt in "cooler" weather....This may make for some difficult discussions....!

Chuck may want to add more detail and insight.

Frankly, today was the first day in two years I made the eight hour drive and was not very happy versus the progress made!