Petrick’s Comments on Draft Deer Management Plan

 

 

I think the plan is a major step in the right direction.  It is obvious that a lot of time and forethought went into this effort.  I like the three goals (Population Goal, Customer Satisfaction Goal, and Habitat Goal) and would add a fourth goal entitled “Access Management.”  As we’ve discussed at prior meetings and at other forums, access, either too much or not enough, is major issue across the state which affects the three other goals.

 

I know the plan is in draft stage but at some point there should be timeframes identified for each of the objectives.  Some thought will have to be spent on prioritizing the objectives given that there are not limitless resources (time, money, and staff) to work on these objectives simultaneously.  Perhaps priority ranking the objectives could be done at a future meeting once the plan becomes more mature.

From my experience, there are many different aspects that contribute to customer satisfaction.  Some mature/seasoned/experienced hunters are quick to define antler characteristics and body size (mature bucks) as their measure of quality while other hunters, especially those that hunt public lands with open access, are happy just to be able to see deer when they hunt.  Florida’s declining number of hunters is a major concern in terms of a declining revenue steams and as a reduction in the number of practitioners of an important wildlife management tool.  I think it is important to do whatever we can to understand customer desires and improve customer satisfaction.  I’ve been fortunate enough to have witnessed improvements in hunting (increasing deer densities, improving hunter satisfaction, and increasing numbers of hunters) on public lands and believe that more can, and should be, done to improve the hunting experience on other public lands.  This can not be done, however, without making some changes.  Public hunting areas do not have to be, nor should we accept them, as sacrificial areas for the masses who can’t afford hunting leases on private lands. Without a plan or purpose other recreational demands for public lands will out-compete hunters for access on public lands.  OHV use on the Ocala NF is a prime example.

 

 

 

We might consider listing the following two sub headings or sub goals under Population Goal; Increase Deer Populations and Decrease Deer Populations with objectives relative to those two different situations.  I think it is important for the readers of the plan to recognize that both conditions exist and are equally important.

 

The idea of establishing population goals is interesting and is difficult to do without an idea of what the hunting public wants and what the non-hunting public will tolerate.  It seems that there should be recognition of where we have too many deer and where we are below ecological caring capacity and have the opportunity to increase deer populations/densities.

 

Objective 1.  How many deer management units (DMU) do we envision and is this the same thing as the “local management units” referenced in the first strategy listed under Objective 1?  If we are thinking of a few more than the number of current Regions but far fewer than the number of counties, will we be able to meet the intent of the first strategy under Objective 1?

 

Objective 2.  I’d reword Objective 2 so as not to confuse “public desires” of recreational hunters vs. non-hunters who must tolerate deer impacts (impacts to ag crops, collisions with motor vehicles).  I’d focus Objective 2 on what the public will allow/tolerate and place the customer satisfaction aspects associated with recreational hunting under the Customer Satisfaction Goal.

 

Objective 3.  I agree that we should have deer population objectives for each WMA.  However most of what is listed under the rationale and the 3rd strategy could/should be placed under the Customer Satisfaction Goal and the 4th goal that I’m proposing entitled “Access Management.”  I suggest another strategy be added under Objective 3, “Evaluate opportunities to improve deer densities and hunting opportunities on WMAs.”

 

Objective 4.  Under the strategy I’d tie the tag system to the DMU proposed under Objective 1.  Combine the two “Rationale” paragraphs into one paragraph.  I’d suggest getting get law enforcement leadership buy in to support the statement “A tagging system is also a necessary tool of law enforcement to consistently enforce bag limits.”

 

Objective 5.  The objective doesn’t mention any specific strategy regarding the transportation and importation of deer from other states.  Maybe this is no longer an issue and there are adequate controls in place.

 

 

We might consider a couple of sub headings under this goal.  One might be “Improve public outreach and information programs.”  Another might be “Developing and improving measures of hunter satisfaction.” 

 

Objective 3.  Suggest moving Objective 3 under the Population Goal under the sub heading for too many deer.  Objective 3 is based more on what the general public will tolerate (deer densities and associated repercussions) than the expectations of a customer, in this case someone who has purchased a hunting license.

 

Objective 4.  Same comments as Objective 3 above.

 

There are strategic elements and reactive elements under this goal.  Strategically, we have a need to get ahead of the development power curve to identify places in the state where a habitat loss is occurring and subsequently where enhanced habitat management is necessary.  Reactively, we need to respond to customers, in this case private land owners, who desire information to enhance deer habitat on their lands.

In regards to habitat loss, we could spend a lot of time and effort without much return for our dollar if we don’t link some of listed strategies to existing initiatives/programs (Ocala to Osceola, Florida Greenway, etc.) designed to retain green space.  This would help refine the areas on private lands and public lands in which we should focus.

 

 

I’d recommend two sub headings “Managing access to improve hunting quality” and “Increasing access to provide additional hunting opportunity.”  This captures both ends of the spectrum, too much access and not enough access.

 

Objective 1.  Identify areas with open access where access management efforts could be implemented to improve deer density and the quality of the hunting experience.

 

Objective 2.  Identify areas suitable for hunting that are underutilized due to inadequate or limited access.