I started to write the State. I want some "hardship" doe permits. The season here is five-days long for does - period. One per day. Typically, we don't see any does on my place over those 5 days - oh well.
The State allows "extra" non-calendar dependent doe tags for land owners by mutual agreement with a combined 640 or more contiguous acres. The State also allows one tag for an owner with 150 or more acres who is ALSO contiguous with land that received doe tags last season. I don't qualify either way.
The State lands immediately adjacent to me are 1.) a WMA of ~9,700 acres; 2.) Conservation Land ~14,000 acres (No Hunting). A 2nd State WMA within a mile is ~6,300-acres. That is ~30,000-acres of immediate and adjacent State owned land (what we call The Big Wildlife Pump). The WMA's allow 40-quota hunters daily, of which participation is around (I am guessing) 40% (32 hunters for 2-WMA on ~16,000 acres) on average daily.
In archery season, the month before modern gun season, the success rate for the State WMA's on does is (I am guessing) <30% (8 for 2-WMA's) a week (less than one per day). Many guys pass on does preferring to wait for "the big one" that doesn't participate.
Outside of archery season, there is No Take of does on the State lands. In particular, there is always No Hunting on the 14,000-acres of Conservation Land immediately adjacent to and which nearly surrounds me.
I can not make a dent in the area-wide doe population even if they were to participate every calendar doe day and I had a 100% success rate each calendar doe day (fingers always crossed on that). So, asking the State for a "hardship" tag (or two) doesn't seem selfish - does it?
In discussing doe tags with a non-decision maker at the State Game Office I got the "bedrock solid" and distinct impression that the "word" is as written in the law - forget doe tags if the acreage ownership / mutual agreement qualification criteria are not met.
Then it dawned on me. If I write the State that there is insufficient doe / deer hunting pressure on their land's adjacent to me while the State is considering opening the adjacent conservation land to hunting, then my empirical "evidence" becomes fact and weighs IN FAVOR of their decision to open the adjacent land to hunting. That would NOT be a good prospect for me. So I will keep my mouth shut, my pen dry, and hunt on in the manner and fashion I have become accustomed to.