Deer Decline ?
Whitetail Deer
Has anyone read this article ? Good read !
Not read that specific article, but others like it.......you'd be living under a rock if this is the first time you have heard about the low(er) number of deer pretty much all over their range.
I hunt Ohio and I do think it is starting to come back up, but the we are a FAR way off from the "old days". That being said, there were indeed too many deer in a lot of places for many years.
The swing to too few was a little more than most wanted/anticipated......fortunately deer are a renewable resource. If everyone lightens up on the trigger finger for a few years they will come back!
3yrs of low numbers here , it tends to be regional , yet are limits are way too much in the first place.
Come to Manitoba if you wanna see low numbers
Hunters are to blame as well. In the face of obvious declines in manyn areas they still stupidly try to fill every tag they can get their hands on.
Probably has a lot to do with the popularity of antlerless tags, taking one doe out of the herd isn't only taking one deer out of the heard
Hhm this has got me thinking. I always seem to harvest one more doe than bucks each year (last year was an exception) I'm thinking maybe not this year.
We really are the biggest factor unless "keystone" species like wolves come into play. I feel bad for northern Minnesota and Wisconsin these days
Not surprising that deer numbers may be down in some areas and that "down" can be permanent in many cases and here are a few reasons why those numbers are declining.
Insurance companies and farmers. How so? Each year across the US, 200 human deaths and 29,000 human injuries can be contributed to deer totaling over 1.1 billion dollars.
Loss to farmers from deer crop damage is 640 million dollars per year.
Both are fair reasons to try to keep the deer numbers down below, the "good old days" numbers.
my best, Paul
Paul...yes the farm bureau and the insurance companies lobby hard for increased harvest. I talk to the local dnr biologist every year when they take samples for cwd testing. They say they have been recommending reduced tag quotas for years, especially the "extra" antlerless tags. The politicians ignore them and make the lobbies happy.
I hunt public in Illinois and this year the deer numbers are definitely down. The biologist said they were told to reduce the herd state wide by 14% and the dnr is shooting deer like a kid at the carnival shooting gallery. When I pull up and see tripod stands on dnr property you know something is going On. I guess once the government feels the millions if not billions of dollars put into their states they will get the numbers back up. The farmers want their money from crops and insurance companies want to save their cash and not pay it out in claims, but the goverenment will be loosing out on millions that go directly to certain agencies. Not to mention all the businesses that benefit from hunters, hotels, restaurants, butchers etc... Maybe it's time for the chambers of commerce start letting their voices be heard,
So this guy and his buddies are used to shooting 30 or 40 deer per season, and they wonder where they all went???
OK - Number one, if there are enough deer around for that to happen in the first place… Obviously way above carrying capacity. Out here in CT we are nowhere near having normal vegetation out in the woods. Everything looks an awful lot like the illustration at the top of that article. Full-grown trees.... and not much else.
Don't get me wrong… I love having a full freezer, but so long as I can take several deer per year, we've obviously got way too many around.
When management agencies jack up doe tag allocations it punishes the public land hunter. Public lands (and open private land) get slaughtered, while the deer go untouched in the sanctuaries that were the primary problem in the first place. Combined with the fact that 95% of forested land in the mid-Atlantic needs better timber management and you have some tougher hunting than it used to be if you can't farm your deer with posted signs and food plots.
Public lands do indeed become a slaughter. Where possible, game managers prefer wolves, cats, bears, coyotes and other predators to do the deer killing. Predators hunt public AND private, and in many cases do a more balanced job of herd management. I understand it, just don't like it too much.
Patdel ..... you took the exact words from my mouth. I've been saying the same for years.
I've even heard of land owners paunch shooting deer with .22's on the edges of their crop fields so they go back into the timber, turn septic, and die, just to reduce numbers.
When I was 10 years old in 1963 I saw a deer track. That's how rare they were then. We have been spoiled but my experience in hunting 11 whitetails states from Rhode Island to Kansas is the decline seems to have bottomed out in 2015.
Hunters need to manage their own herd whether you hunt public or private. DNR isn't going to do it to your satisfaction. If you think you have too many, shoot some does. If you don't, cut back or eliminate your doe harvest.
Deer numbers are still too high in a lot of places. It isn't a switch. Quality deer follow quality habitat. Quality habitat can take years to develop once damaged. It isn't crop fields or food plots that determine carrying capacity. Agriculture, like all other foods simply is not palatable to deer year round. Just like natural mast. BROWSE and young succession is what determines carrying capacity because it makes up the LARGEST percentage of the deer diet by a LONG shot. 365 days a year. It is the only thing they have to eat everyday.
Most deer hunters moan about quality but truly don't understand that in order to have quality numbers, you have to have the quality habitat. Quality habitat means lots of browse they will eat. Without it, deer numbers and health are going to suffer. A brief history lesson googling it will show anyone who wants to see that deer had the perfect habitat with the added protection of game departments, to grow to an all time high number a decade or so ago.
With the new model of wildlife management being for health, game agencies have/are working hard to get numbers at a level that can be sustained at healthy levels that keeps disease in check naturally, provides recreation opportunity for hunters, and allows the habitat to recover from the bulging numbers it has experienced.
The QDMA suggests that 30% of doe harvest by hunters will stabalize the herd in moderate habitat taking into other mortality factors. With hunting bieng the leading facor in deer mortality at double the rate verus all other factors combined, we are currently looking at roughly a 60% doe turn over to stabilize herds. In the past some states were using 75% as a guideline during the deer population boom times. Analyzing the differences between then and now, It simply reinforces the link good habitat has on deer density's.
Better get used to it. It is the way it is and, the way it should be for the future of the resource. God Bless
A few years ago I got into more internet arguments over on the Ohio forum over the declining deer population with most telling me I was off my rocker... Along with the declining kill stats, I think those folks are finally realizing it... I knew what I knew by first hand personal late season deer counts on moonlit nights on snow covered fields... Been doing it for years covering a lot of ground... You'd be surprised how well you can see on full moon nights during January, February, and March against the snow... A good time to check is around midnight when many seem to be up and about and feeding... Don't exactly know why that time frame during those months, but it is what it is, at least in the eastern portion of the state...
The average weekend hunter has the "ah, they'll be back next year" mindset... They need to understand this ain't catch and release...
I kinda grew up with the deer population and maybe why a fanatic of whitetails... Like Charlie, I remember when a deer sighting was really rare as a kid during the mid 60's and still remember seeing my first wild deer, it's forever envisioned in my brain...
They've overkilled around here and it'll take them a while for numbers to recover as long as the DOW keeps the doe tags down and reevaluates the crop damage kill permits... Those kill permits are devastating to local populations... Blowing away deer with a high powered rifle at night with a light and leaving them for the buzzards is just immoral to me...
WV, you nailed it. In the northeast here that is our biggest problem. We have all mature woods, no ag, and like you said lacking browse. People keep talking about lowering doe tags but having browse would be the key. Same with grouse, rabbits, pheasants etc. Here in MA the only places I see rabbits are around the houses. None live in a mature forest.
I agree it's all about carrying capacity of the land. That comes down to how we all manage it. For years, if I wasn't seeing deer and had an antlerless tag, it would go into the soup stock. Near my land, there is 1200 acres of state forest. This is the most un-managed resource that most states have in the northeast. Trees 80 feet tall with no under-story has a HUGE negative impact on the carrying capacity of the land. For states with budget issues, this is an opportunity to make some money and help out the natural resources. Selective logging of the forest (helping curb invasive species like Emerald Ash Bore) would allow some light to the forest floor, new sprouts, forage growth and more carrying capacity for all species (birds, squirrels, predators and so on). Understory provides food and cover to protect the young, support declining species and help all through harsh winter weather. This isn't new to all of us (I think), they teach this in the Hunter Education for our state - but the state just doesn't practice it.
35 acre I think it's because the tree hugger liberals think they know more then everyone else.
Spike hit on an important point. In many areas, fully mature forests hold a lower quantity, and a lower diversity of wildlife. The public perception is that forests with large, mature trees are what you want to see. The reality is stands of large trees, coupled with various age classes of other trees so that you have a diverse habitat structure will hold the most wildlife. Well controlled clear cutting is actually very good for wildlife, so long as you don't allow all of the topsoil to erode off into nearby rivers.
Couple this with a few ag fields for food and you will have all of the animals you want even with significant hunting pressure.
