|
Post by firstwd on Nov 28, 2018 21:49:51 GMT -5
Currently management is done on a county by county basis. If a low bonus antlerless county next to a high bonus county is killing a bunch of antlerless deer, the thought might be too increase the available number. But, if the majority of those deer are coming right along the border with a high number county the decision to lower the available bonus deer could be easily made.
If a majority of the deer killed in a county is concentrated to one area, but there is constant complaints about no deer in the county, they can show the county isn't the issue just specific areas.
If a traditional area type that should hold deer ( like a river system) isn't showing any deer kills, they can do further research as to what is making the area undesirable and maybe find major ecological issues.
I don't know what exactly (if anything) they do with the data, but it takes all possible data to do good research.
|
|
|
Post by butlerj on Nov 28, 2018 21:54:54 GMT -5
I figure at least pin point a county. In hopes that the information retained over last year and this year and however many more to determine where our herd is at and what is needed. Like further lowering county doe quotas.
As far as I know the surveys started last year, I did the survey on both of my deer last year. Earlier this year They sent an appreciation letter and a cool Indiana shaped fridge magnet that says "Indiana deer management partner 2017". Has a silohette of a buck. And says DNR across the bottom Probably 10x4 size magnet. Very neat!
|
|
|
Post by jdebose on Nov 28, 2018 21:58:42 GMT -5
Sounds like a good use of data. I’m more than happy to provide feedback each and every time. I’m glad this tread came up or I would have never open the cofirmation email and seen it.
|
|