Curt Wells Editorial
Whitetail Deer
If you don't read Bowhunter magazine, then this might not interest you. Curt has penned what I think is an excellent editorial about whether or not YOU should shoot does. I think it is spot on. I have heard these concerns on BS several times just lately. Read it and see what you think.
Yes it was a great piece. Like many things in life just because one can does not mean one should. it's situational not philosophical.
Definitely situational. Here in the West where muley numbers are declining and fawn recruitment is low, blows me away that doe tags are even offered at all, never mind gobs of them
Haven't read it but have long been appalled at the number of hunters who blindly believe that if the DNR is selling the tags then it just must be OK. Completely ignoring the politics involved.
Do what is best for your hunting area. If your numbers are down why on earth go out and kill the does?
2 years ago I had an either sex tag for Co. I refused to shoot a doe when it got down to the wire. Every year in NW Nebraska I have chances at muley does. I will not shoot one. Low fawn survival, loss of winter habitat I am not going to add to it.
For the last 8 years I haven't shot a whitetail doe in Mn. After the intensive harvest for a couple to many years I am not going to add to that states declining deer numbers.
I agree its situational for shooting does.
Yup. Never in my life seen deer numbers as low as they are here and lots of "chatter" about deer season being closed for good next year yet I can still shoot a buck and 2 antlerless this year. What gives?
Its spot on, Great write up by Curt.
Unfortunately, the states can still dictate how many does are killed by implementing earn-a-buck where a doe has to be killed first. Our Urban zones are that way for the early season but worry it will be expanded.
Heck Kansas GAVE a doe tag to every NR hunter successful in the draw. Not that anything is free as you still pay a premium for the any whitetail tag to begin with.
I haven't read the article but in reality bowhunters have little to no effect on the population. I agree you can't gripe if you are laying down does left and right but in my county as of about 10 minutes ago there have been 636 female deer taken. 62 of those were archery kills. So if every bowhunter took it upon themselves to not shoot does there still would have been 574 does taken.
Until gun hunters follow suit, we are screwed and at the mercy of what our state fish and game departments deem acceptable. Many years ago Kentucky had it perfect. A gun hunter could shoot 2 deer. Only one could be antlered. Bow hunters got that same tag but then could buy extra doe permits as long as they were willing to pay the fee. We had tons of deer then and until they opened our county up as unlimited doe harvest with any weapon for a few years the population was thriving. After a few years of mowing every deer in the woods down the population dropped drastically. It has been slowly recovering for about 5 years or so.
It's a simple formula...if you don't have enough deer to shoot does you dint have enough to shoot bucks either...cancel season a couple years, shoot coyote instead and you'll be back on track in a year or two.
Although I agree with Jaquomo regarding our mule deer population here in CO, Bowfreak is spot on. Bowhunters take about 10% (under 1000) of the total doe harvest in Colorado. That includes whitetails. Bowhunters simply don't have enough effect to be the problem or the solution for our muley problem. Its been many years since I shot a doe muley.
Bowfreak nailed it. Iowa FINALLY removed the late rifle season which I feel will bring the numbers back up fast. Amazing how many are taken yearly with firearms. As much as we need them to back off, we need them to manage as well. Slippery slope.
Management 101.
Reduce and control populations kill females. Many species males can and do breed multiple females. Sport hunting is males only.
Agree with the above, situational. Many state wildlife depts have different management criteria than hunters do, often at odds with them. (see: elk vs grazing management MT Breaks...) We used to be at odds with the sheep management on Lanai WRT a genetic problem with rams. Many hunters took it upon themselves to manage where the state refused to. Made a big difference and eventually the state joined in.
I'd even take it a step further and consider my freezer level or if I know someone that could use the meat, even when the population could easily support it.
I read it and I certainly think it's situational.
I recently got back from NE and shot one of my two anterless tags.
I need the meat more than NE needs one more white tail doe and I don't have one smidgen of guilt for doing it. In six days of hunting, I saw more deer than I've seen in 5 years of hunting in CA.
Antlerless deer do not get shot on my farm, and haven't since 2007. The idiots in charge in Illinois have no daily limit on antlerless whitetail but limit squirrels to five! You can not rely on those morons to do the smart thing. I do have a guy who hunts next to me that bought into the QDM thing that says shoot every doe. He doesn't shoot as many as he used to but still shoots way too many.
Ike, if you liked the hunting now you should have seen it 3 years ago. It still could be better in areas of Nebraska.
The facts are simple. Insurance company's are driving the management practices of all the F&Gs across the country. Some farmers also contribute to the process by complaining about crop damage. Mike
Seems like we are all on the same page. I usually get five or six doe tags on my 217 ac. place. I never allow over three to be killed. I figure I know more about the deer herd there than they do. I try to document fawn numbers through trail cams. I leave them out 24/7/365 because I want to KNOW all I can about where/when/how many. I try to kill most of the does around the edge of the place as well. Lots of deer come onto my place for the buffet. The neighbors don't grow food plots, so ...........
Ask the non-hunter who just smacked a deer with their car the same question.
I'd guess 90 -percent of the population in Kansas, a very pro-hunting state, thinks we need to kill more deer, even after the drought dropped numbers.
It's mostly up to the landowner to judge his or her property.
For the hunter out to kill some antlers then I guess it's not a problem to pass on does. For the hunter who hunts for meat telling or suggesting they pass on a doe is a bit over board. The average hunter get a few days a year to hunt and put one in the freezer, whereas some are paid to hunt for a living and go on multiple trips a year, it's easier for them to pass. I don't trophy hunt, I,hunt for the meat and for the act of the hunt. I shoot and fill my tags and it doesn't matter if it has twelve points of no points it goes to the freezer.
The problem I see with this "one size fits all" management strategy is, it doesn't work.
Case in point, limited / zero access on one of our local properties will give you the impression there is an OVER-population of deer... Not uncommon to see large groups of does on this property. They will simply camp out there all season long. Now add in the fact that MOST properties have very limited to zero access and there is an abundant deer population with the typical issues that poses.
Conversely, the accessible areas get pounded all season (and by criminals who poach during the closed season) with every weapon imaginable. Hunting there gives the appearance that deer numbers are WAY down. But in reality, they are not. The deer have simply moved to safer areas and left the over hunted 'war zones' for safer pastures.
Until there is a universal application of the management strategy, we are chasing our tails, so to speak. And a universal strategy will be impossible considering it would take a 100% all in approach by the stakeholders (landowners in this case) and that will NEVER happen.
Deer used to be considered food, take what you plan on eating and leave the rest for next year. Now they have become a cash crop and that approach is doomed to failure.
As always, just my opinion. Your milage may vary. ~Steve
"The facts are simple. Insurance company's are driving the management practices of all the F&Gs across the country."
Yup! Who needs a deer biologist when we have Farm Bureau?
Accurate post Steve. I don't know if Curt was advocating a one-size-fits solution or not though, as I don't get Bowhunter.
Anyone who implies that QDM is about shooting every doe knows nothing of QDM. Please do a little research of what QDM is about before making dumb statements like that.
Franzen, I can tell you that the answer to your question is no, he did not. That's why in my opening post I said " whether or not YOU should shoot does ". It is, and should always be, up to the individual within the law.
LB, nobody is advocating what you should do. This is just a discussion. Hope that clears it up for you.
In commie Cali with more 'sacred' animals than you can shake a stick at (but better not, that might be harassing them), there is no problem with deer numbers. By any number of biological indicators (fawn survival, mature adult size, browse condition to hame a few) there are places with waay too many deer for the available habitat. As noted above, however, on the one or two places that do allow public hunting it's like they dropped a neutron bomb there -bupkus for wildlife. I know because I have and do continue to scout and hunt those areas. Hunting out-of-state areas is like reaching nirvana in comparison. So where is this going? Hunters and hunting as a population management tool in CA is irrelevant. States where hunters have access to a significant percentage of the land, I'd guess hunting can be very effective. Perhaps too effective if F&G is taking their cues from the Farm Bureau and insurance companies (and those who make claims) more than hunters. CA serves as an example of what happens when urban liberals call the shots. In other states I'd guess hunters have more opportunity to weigh in on issues of concern (such as allocation of doe tags) and they really should. F&G departments are constantly soliciting input. If you don't participate you shouldn't squawk.
i have noticed an over all decline in deer numbers from the East coast to the Midwest. The good ole days for now will have been the the years from 1995 to 2005. There are multiple reasons for the decline. This is just my opinion of course but I have hunted ten states in the last few years and have seen different areas respond differently but the overall trend is down.
That said there are many private land deer managers responsible for not only their own land management but many surrounding areas which benefit from their management practices through deer dispersal. The wise states will allow private land managers to continue to spend lots of money to keep herds strong which benefits many surrounding properties as deer disperse.
All that said we need to do what's best for the particular areas we hunt. Some areas I used to hunt I have stopped hunting altogether or scaled back and some areas we still come up short on antlerless kills. C
Read it and totally agree with Curt. Good article.
