What do you think?

[danesdad]

ORIGINAL: bmt4413

danesdad-studies have found that season length plays a greater role than tag allocations. If you go to extreems and throw out crazy numbers like you just did then no, tag limits would be more effective. But when is there a 100,000 tags and then only 500. If you have an antlerless season of 3 days-m,w,f of the second week there will be far less hunters in the woods to use the tags they bought. Poor weather conditions also play a larger role with shorter seasons. Season length plays a greater role then tag allocations when the numbers of tags are reasonably represented.

I'd like to see this study since one of the commissioners stated (when they added split seasons to a couple new WMUS) that they didn't expect the harvest to be reduced significantly. The reason that they did this is to try to appaer to be taking hunter complaints into account. If you start doe hunting on saturday, hunters during the first week will (theoretically) see more deer and (again, theoretically) be more satisfied with the hunting experience. Shorter seasons may cause reduced harvests because of (as you stated) adverse weather conditions and reduced hunter participation. But isn't that relying on luck to reduce the kill? If you go back to the three day doe season, but there is 4 inches of snowfall the night before the first day and it'a about 30 degrees, with no wind those does will get slammed. If it's 60 degrees and raining, not so much. And what if it turns out that hunters prefer the three day season and turn out in force? The real way to have the most control over the antlerless harvest is having a a long season but limiting the number of tags available. Having it run concurrent with the antlered season insures higher participation because hunters would be out there anyway, Having it concurrent means guys dont have to use additional vacation. It is easier to control harvest with tag allocations.

Interestingly, they reduced season length in some WMUs AND reduced the number of tags. So, one way or another, I believe they are going to reduce the overall doe harvest. But, I think it will be the shotgun theory, you know?

[bmt4413]

I agree, either way it will reduce the harvest. As far as the studies go, there were multiple examples as well as lectures given at WVU from the DNR when I was there for the fisheries and wildlife management program. Many guys can only get off a few days a year to hunt. Some only the first week. If you have a split season where the antlerless season is the second week or a three day season after the atlered season the hunter hours will be significantly reduced. If I remember correctly, I think it was based more on longer seasons like archery that goes a few months or the entire deer season including all weapons that they saw greater differences in harvest. Some states like NC have extreemly long gun seasons, so it may have been based more on situations like that. Maybe they have found new results since I was in school, but I graduated in 06 so that doesn't leave a whole lot of time. The idea was the same across multiple classes, limited hunter hours=limited harvest. by the way I wasn't saying they should rely on chances of bad weather. I just meant that it is a possability just as the situation you stated that would lead to a greater harvest. it's just when you have a short season poor weather can play a greater role in harvest compared to a longer season. Just throwin some info out there from my schooling-not trying to start an argument.

[danesdad]

I think that was why they went to a longer season. They didn't want weather or hunter availability to determine harvest. Or at least they wanted to minimumize these factors. And shortening the season would seem to reintroduce this more random element into it.