Sunday, September 26, 2010

Nelson's Deer Management Plan as submitted to the Ag Dept on Sept 10th. Some very interesting stuff in it. I'd be interested in what you think...

Nelson Farm Mgmt Plan                                                            

8 comments:

  1. wow - almost too intimidated to read it (joking). this guy has never published a peer-reviewed scientific paper about deer or other big game. his nearest expertise is herptiles and birds from the 1970s. why does anybody see him as an expert on deer? i guess it must be his popular writing - he saw a niche to exploit deer breeeding in the early 1980s and ran with it. smart, but not a scientist - not even close.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Eric, could you please summarize the State/legislative requirements for this plan. It seems that there are some aspects of the plan that are missing, or intentionally left out. But we would have to look to the specific requirements to determine this. There are certainly some important issues not discussed.

    I would have to agree with the above post that this document is written in a less than scientific fashion...almost autobiographical. If you cross out every sentence beginning with the word "I" you will be able get to some of the real content. But does is it really a long term management plan?
    I will finish reviewing this anecdotal document later today and try to offer more constructive comments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rob,
    Go back to the Tuesday, June 1, 2010
    Democratic Hunting under Attack in VT post. The full amendment is copied there.
    No question, Dr. Deer has a big ego.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This from personal email:
    Thanks for the chance to see this.I think this will be accepted rapidly by Ag as it gets them off the hook with legislation.Implementing a white tailed deer reduction program is a vital need no matter what happens on jurisdiction but there are currently no fish and wildlife laws that allow anything beyond letting licensed muzzle loader hunters to access the property during the season and s similar effort during archery season. Vermont has long needed a way to conduct controlled deer removals using public hunting outside the existing season frameworks around airports and probably other sites .
    Kroll's plan is restricted to suggestions on how to manage a farmed deer herd treating deer as domestic stock that are shot instead of loaded on a truck and taken to a slaughter house and does not deal with the issue we raise that wildlife is "wild" and not own-able by individuals unless taken by legal means in hunting seasons. He dodges the issue of privatizing wildlife calling it divisive, which it is as this isn't the way wildlife is treated in the US with the exception of Texas and some other southwestern states.
    Finally, I don't think Kroll is very clued into the northeast deer habitat issues but since there is nothing natural about the facility and situation that has developed and supplemental feeding allows the obviously over populated herds to exist where they would otherwise be decimated by starvation and disease. A square mile of good Orleans County woods shouldn't be expected to successfully carry more than 15 deer and maybe a tenth of a moose. Most of the county isn't that good and would have less animals in a natural situation. There is no educational value in promoting tourism in these situations as the vast majority of people are already so disconnected from the natural world that passing this off as normal and even good would only foster more problems.
    I guess the bottom line is should Vermont allow anybody to make money out of anything without any regard for ethics or not. Somethings should not be privatized like wildlife, air, and water. We know from experience here and worldwide what happens to privatizing water and using air like a free sewer, do we really need to do it with another public resource before we collectively learn that 'gee that was a mistake". Probably we do as people learn life's lessons one at a time without resorting to history.
    Let's keep this focused on public ownership and returning control to the Board .

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rob Borowske, Past Chair, F&W BoardSeptember 28, 2010 at 3:52 PM

    To add a bit of information.
    The Board did have the authority to establish special deer management zones. T. 10 Ch 103
    section 4086. This allowed the Board, after a public hearing to "establish by rule a special deer management zone to harvest locally overabundant deer" This could be established due to hunan safety, property damage or ecological ddamage. The Board established the Boundaries and the Number of permits. The hunt could occur at any time of the year.

    What Legislature givith, it may take away.

    This Statute establishing Board authority on special management zones was repealed in 1997 with an effective sunset date of July 1 2003.

    I knew that old book would come in handy!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Will Ag. dept. allow the sale of meat in his restaruant or to others? Would it have to be during or following the season? How does being "certified" effect governmental or public opinion? Who "Certifies"? Do variances allow all rules off? Rod Elmer

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rod -
    Sounds like some good questions for the Ag Dept. My assumption is if he meets all the normal requirements for serving domestic meat he could sell deer and moose along with his elk and beef.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I guess you probably don't know that a scientist isn't required to write the plan. It's not required in current use either. ...well for that matter it's not required on the FWD board either. The board's input ranks right with the author of this work. There are no scientists on the board. Not a single PhD. It's just a bunch of folks who think they know what they are doing, but have absolutely no peer review. The guy writing this is more capable of issuing this plan than the board has reviewing it.

    If the Ag dept. has issue, the the Ag dept will seek a remedy. Nelson will submit the remedy since it's likely the Ag dept will tell him point blank what is wrong and even half write the thing.

    ReplyDelete