That may be true if it were a completely random poll........By requiring a ownership of a Minimum of 5 acres, The poll is NOT RANDOM. While I feel the poll should be taken at license purchase for everyone, At the very minimum PROPERTY OWNERSHIP SHOULD NOT BE A FACTOR THIS TIME.
Deer are a public resouce. They are NOT the property of those owning 5 acres or more, They have no more vested interest in those deer than a hunter who dwells in an apartment.
I would urge the APR workgroup to take this consideration when deliberating approval ratings in the case of a statewide APR program. Survey taken at the point of sale ensure everyone a fair say in what is about to happen. I agree with Swampbuck in regards to a Statewide APR proposal. Also, with this particular case, it would not be necessary to get a supermajority due to the fact that there was a complete sampling of hunters statewide.
Now, in the case of a specific DMU or regional area is where it gets a little sticky. I have pondered this quite a bit since I had made a suggestion to use point of sale, similar to the waterfowlers' HIP survey. How could one ensure that the survey sample was indeed reflective of who actually hunts the DMU? Realistically, there are only two ways this can be accomplished to maintain the credibility sought from the survey seeking an approval. A form of identification, such as a Driver's License or equivalent State ID card listing the hunter's address in the DMU in question.......and a tax id number from a private landowner in the DMU. Otherwise, you may run into a finger pointing game where some will claim that outsiders tied to organizations or groups have 'salted' the survey to reflect wishes that are not congruent with what the residents and the landowners wish for that DMU. This shall protect the integrity of the survey.
In specific DMU's or regions, there should be thought or consideration to the make up of that DMU with regards to percentage of public lands vs private lands. It would be entirely unacceptable for a DMU that is a majority of private lands to sit in the back of the bus to what public land hunters wish for in that particular DMU. The same can be said in DMU's where Public lands make up a majority of the land mass, where it would not be fair to have the private landowners driving the agenda in that DMU.
There should be some weighted average when it comes to assessing the survey when it come to these particular cases. If a DMU is too large or it is deemed this is problematic, there could be further redistricting of land to try and keep the majority of public land and private lands within a DMU to help sort out any of this.
Not sure how realistic that would be, but just an idea.
In my opinion, I like to see everyone get a fair shake. However, a landowner does have the greater vested interest in the area where he/she has land. They are tied to that area with the ownership of land, where as a public landowner does not have the same financial stake in that DMU and is not tied by the same manner.