A Contradictory Thought On Deer Hunting

[Mike Belt]

Sort of a Catch 22 thought here....

I've read many posts on here over the years advocating introducing people into the sport of deer hunting; young or old. Fact is, no one wants to be sitting on stand and have hunters walk in on them. With more hunters in the woods it has the potential for happening more often; particularly on public land. Fact is, hunting acreage dwindles more every year. Fact is, the more hunters involved the more marketable available hunting land becomes and the higher the lease prices are driven. Fact is the more hunters involved the fewer deer there are to go around. Fact is the decline in deer hunters will one day silence the voice of reason supporting deer hunting and hunting will fall by the wayside. Fact is, even if hunter involvement increases deer hunting as we know it will still take a nosedive because of the reasons listed above. Not trying to sound pessimistic but any thoughts....?

 

[cecil30-30]

We are living the good old days of deer hunting right now. With habitat loss and human population growth I really dont see hunting getting much better than it is now.

 

[TheLBLman]

Mike, at least in TN, we have several mitigating factors off-setting many of your otherwise legitimate concerns, especially if you want to go back 15-plus years.

The biggest single factor has been the expansion of the deer herd into areas that simply had few if any deer over 20 years ago. While much land has been lost to development, much more land that previously had no deer hunting now has good deer hunting. There's lots of exceptions, and I'd bet near your home area is one of them, perhaps the biggest one in and near Shelby County.

In the coming years, I suspect we'll see a huge increase in "urban" deer hunting, but much of this will be because it's "convenient" more than an issue of there not being more classic deer hunting opportunities within an hour or two's drive of those "urban" hunters. IMO, most of the large WMA's in TN have fewer deer hunters on them than they did during the 1980's and early 90's, and most have a better quality deer herd now as well.

There are vast areas of both West & East TN that had relatively few deer during the 80's and 90's that now have good deer densities, including my home county of Obion. And many of the West TN and East TN hunters who used to travel to Middle TN for deer hunting are simply now finding acceptable deer hunting closer to their homes.

At the same time, "today's" deer hunter is generally not as tolerant of being crowded with other hunters as they had to be back in the 80's. Not to mention, most of us are not heading afield just to see how many bucks we can kill in a season, as we're also interested in being "hunter-managers" and the overall quality of the experience. It was once much more about just shooting every buck that had antlers over 3" long.

And to those who think that "kill every buck" mentality brought in more hunters, I totally disagree. Back then, people got into hunting, and they mainly hunted things other than deer. Most were hooked on hunting before they ever went deer hunting. Today, it seems to me the people most likely to never get hooked on hunting are those whose first hunting experience is deer hunting, while those who are hooked on a variety of small game and/or waterfowl hunting are more likely to become lifetime hunters.

If anyone wants a true wilderness deer hunting experience, it may be the Cherokee National Forest has never had so few deer hunters. Fewer deer, too, than in times past, but there are much fewer hunters competing for them. I'd say right now is the good ole days of deer hunting in TN, and I don't think it will change much during the next few years.

 

[landman]

Today the TWRA commission talked about and
asked questions about are we at the max capacity
with most seeming to believe the herd needs to
drop some, but enough does are not being harvested

 

[Bone Collector]

There are definitely not enough does being shot in some areas, but I agree with Mike on a lot of this stuff. The key to whether Hunting survives is whether or not we keep our public hunting lands. Honestly the only way that happens is more people get into hunting, so we have a large enough voice.

The biggest obstacle we face IMO is greed, by politicians, landowners, and hunters alike. Politicians want to make money by developing, landowners want an arm and a leg to allow you to hunt, and hunters, do not want any competing for "their" deer.

IMO land leasing is the downfall of hunting. It puts up a further, monetary barrier to getting into or sticking with hunting. Some people cannot afford to buy all the stuff and pay for a place to hunt, even if they are already into the sport. Property sizes are dwindling, and land owners want more money....

 

[Bone Collector]

Oh i forgot one other thing that is helping hunting decline. this will surely ruffle some feathers, but oh well.

Yep you guessed it Trophy hunting. Back when big buck mania was not the norm, most anyone would let you hunt and no one that hunted there, cared, because A. they had other places to hunt, and B. they didn't care if they got a big buck, they only cared that they got a deer. Any deer was a good deer. Once the horn porn hit the airwaves and magazines, it was all over but the crying. Guys got horn crazy, which is what lead to land leases. Land leasing was not originally a way to get yourself a place to hunt, it was a way to make sure that only people that would hunt the way you wanted to, were able to hunt an area. once the word got out that hunter's were paying, everyone wanted money.

 

[TheLBLman]

Some people cannot afford to buy all the stuff . . . . .

Herein lies much of the perceived problem.
We buy into all the advertising and "keeping up with the Joneses."

When I started hunting, I had a shotgun. One shotgun.
I used that one shotgun for hunting squirrels, doves, rabbits, ducks, quail, and deer. Killed my first deer at age 12, and had killed many deer before I was 20, when I bought my first deer rifle.

I think was also about 20 years old before owning any camo clothing, never realizing there was a handicap to not having them. Of course, back then we also didn't spend any money on "smart" phones, gps units, atv's, etc. Today I go afield with all the bells & whistles, but can't say I enjoy the hunting any more than when I was a poor teenager, deer hunting with a shotgun and whatever clothes I could put together to keep me warm.

My point is that hunting can be enjoyed very effectively without a lot of money being spent on various weapons and equipment. We've just come to think we need everything "as seen on TV" by the infomercial "hunting" shows.

Should add that when I was a teenager, there was no muzzleloader season, and "the" deer season opened a few days before Thanksgiving. Most of November was spent small-game hunting, which is where most people developed their passions for hunting period. Deer season didn't last so long, and we went back to hunting other game soon as deer season closed. Wasn't any "juvenile" deer hunt either, yet more kids became passionate about hunting then than do now, I think because the focus was more on hunting than just deer hunting.

 

[AT Hiker]

I think because the focus was more on hunting than just deer hunting.

Here is the million dollar statement, sadly as a whole we have lost that. The free market, like it or not, had a lot to do with it.

 

[deerhunter10]

i agree bone collector for the most part. deer hunting all the way around is a multi billion dollar industry. and people are money hungry and will do anything to keep it that high. i agree and i am one of them i am very secretive about my spots. i worked my butt off for my farms and don't want to loose them not to mention the time i have actually working on the farms. so yes i am selfish about my spots and farms. and i will say i would much rather pay for a lease then deal with public land hunting. i have some MAJOR respect for those hunters and not for me. i agree with a lot that is being said about the overall issues. i am a trophy hunter and i could not even imagine that not being the path i hunt. i love it and it makes it way more exciting for me personally. piling up 5-15 deer a year does not float my boat at all. it would be easy for us that way. i think we are we will see a increase in the herd and big deer, and i decrease in hunters and hunting spots. let face it hunting is not at all in any form a cheap sport. just the gas a lone can break you. not to mention all the other things. last year it seemed like one of the best years in a while about just huge deer being killed. but like in another thread expectations are way to high, cost are high, and overall hunters have changed.

 

[BSK]

Mike,

I would like to see the latest demographics on deer hunters by age. 15 years ago, the great concern was that once the primary group of deer hunters--the Baby Boomers--grew too old to continue deer hunting, there wouldn't be a younger generation to replace them. However, it seems as if we've been seeing a major surge in 20 and 30-somethings taking up deer hunting. I believe quite a few of the most serious deer hunters on this site fall into that age category. But again, I haven't seen the latest demographics. As those of our age group--the last of the Baby Boomers--begin to drop out of deer hunting, will there be enough "new" younger hunters to replace us and keep deer hunting alive?

Another question is, how many deer hunters are needed to keep deer hunting alive? Is there some "critical mass" number needed to economically support the activity? At what economic point can state wildlife agencies no longer function due to lack of funds?

 

[BSK]

Another topic several have mentioned is concern over the fact that as deer hunters become a smaller and smaller portion of the total population, eventually we will lose enough political power to protect hunting from the urban/suburban anti-hunting mindset. In my opinion, THAT is exactly why we need to encourage the participation of non-traditional groups into deer hunting. And I'm not talking about drawing in huge numbers of new hunters. I'm talking about drawing in enough members of other interest groups that a positive message about hunting becomes part of those other interest groups' belief systems. For instance, the recent increase in positive press about hunting from the "sustainable foods" interest group, I believe, is going to do wonders for the image of hunting. A positive view of hunting within this interest group will pay huge dividends, as members of this group have a wide web of contacts into other interest groups, that in past, were seen as "enemies" of hunting. Another interest group we should hope gets drawn into deer hunting is the soccer-mom suburbia crowd. We need to find a way to show this group that suburban hunting is safe and effective, as their growing anger over consumption of their expensive landscaping by deer and car-deer collisions begins to open the door for dialogue.

 

[woodsman87]

I think it is common sense that hunting in general for all game species is going away slowly but surelt.

Human population growth means more houses, buildings, cities, towns, malls, subdivisions, and less trees, fields, thickets, food plots, swamps, creeks, and what have you.

It isn't happening as quick as what I thought it was, but yea, hunting will not last on earth forever.

 

[TheLBLman]

Human population growth means more houses, buildings, cities, towns, malls, subdivisions, and less trees, fields, thickets, food plots, swamps, creeks, and what have you.

While I agree with you, I don't think this will end hunting nor does it necessarily destroy wildlife populations. Many game species are very adaptive, particularly white-tail deer. Others, such as bobwhite quail, haven't been. No doubt, there are big differences in "urban" hunting compared to "wilderness" hunting. At present, I'd say most hunting is somewhere between "urban" and "wilderness", with much of man's activities actually creating better wildlife habitat than some of our wilderness areas. Deer are actually thriving in many urban subdivisions, have adapted to have extremely small "home" ranges, and seem to be enjoying a smorgasbord of new food sources (much to the disdain of many homeowners).

For example, compare the deer population of the Cherokee National Forest to Knox County, TN. About three decades ago, this huge national forest was a major destination for many deer hunters, and there was no deer season in Knox County. I would have to classify any deer hunting today in Knox County as "urban", yet today, there may be more deer hunters hunting in Knox County (and killing more deer there) than in the entire Cherokee National Forest.

Yet, the CNF is about the same size it was 30-plus years ago, and at least on a per hunter basis, I believe the opportunity for a hunter to kill a deer there may be greater today than in times past. But many of those Knoxville area hunters who once HAD to drive to places like the CNF to go deer hunting, they now more conveniently deer hunt in their back yards.

Think about this.
Knox County is the 3rd most people populous county in Tennessee. There were essentially no deer and no deer hunting in this county much beyond a couple decades ago. Few people could have ever imagine that the annual deer harvest in Knox County alone would be exceeding 1,000 deer by the Year 2012.

This has to equate to a huge number of deer hunters who once traveled to WMA's and public lands like the CNF, now, many are just hunting in the backyards, even if it is in a subdivision.

No doubt, much is changing. But it's not all bad. Some is simply hunter preference. The Cherokee National Forest has twice the acreage of Knox County, and there's not a single house or subdivision on that wilderness acreage. And it remains available to those who prefer a wilderness hunting experience, with far fewer hunters on it than in times past.

 

[TheLBLman]

Hopefully, this trend continues to and human populations focus more on singular urban centers rather than spreading out. This would be highly beneficial for hunting.

I agree.

It's interesting to study population dynamics over time of both deer and humans. :) In the TN county where I currently do the most of my deer hunting (Stewart), I believe more people resided there in 1850 than do today in 2014. What's more they were very "scattered" across the county, making it very easy for those farmsteads to simply wipe out the deer & turkey populations with year-round subsistence hunting. The elk and bison populations were even more quickly destroyed.

Yet today, like nearly all TN counties, there is a thriving deer population and better deer hunting than only a couple decades ago. Some counties now have free-roaming elk populations restored, and even Stewart County has seen restoration of a pretty impressive elk & bison prairie which visitors drive thru daily to get a taste of how much of Middle TN looked a couple hundred years ago.

What's even more unexpected: The most talked about, most sought after deer hunt in Tennessee, where hunters wait in line nearly a decade for their opportunity, it's an "urban" deer hunt within the City of Memphis.

Go figure.

 

[AT Hiker]

I agree.

It's interesting to study population dynamics over time of both deer and humans. :) In the TN county where I currently do the most of my deer hunting (Stewart), I believe more people resided there in 1850 than do today in 2014.

Not for long, Mont. Co is about full and with the new Hwy 79 it is quicker to reach most of Clarksville from Eastern Stewart Co. (Indian Mound in particular) than it is from the majority of Mont. Co.

Land and home prices are already going up, once new leadership gets into Stewart Co I expect growth to explode. Of course, Ft. Campbell, LBL, the refuge and state forest will secure some of its wildness but the newer generation of inherited land holders will start selling off when the price is right.

Only thing right now hurting Stewart Co growth is the vacation and recreational property holders, lots of these people but very few pay any type of contributory tax.

I hope it stays wild, but the East side of the Cumberland River is destined to grow.

 

[landman]

I agree.

It's interesting to study population dynamics over time of both deer and humans. :) In the TN county where I currently do the most of my deer hunting (Stewart), I believe more people resided there in 1850 than do today in 2014.

Not for long, Mont. Co is about full and with the new Hwy 79 it is quicker to reach most of Clarksville from Eastern Stewart Co. (Indian Mound in particular) than it is from the majority of Mont. Co.

Land and home prices are already going up, once new leadership gets into Stewart Co I expect growth to explode. Of course, Ft. Campbell, LBL, the refuge and state forest will secure some of its wildness but the newer generation of inherited land holders will start selling off when the price is right.

Only thing right now hurting Stewart Co growth is the vacation and recreational property holders, lots of these people but very few pay any type of contributory tax.

I hope it stays wild, but the East side of the Cumberland River is destined to grow.

Stewart Co will never see growth like Montgomery, not enough infrastructure there or funding to get it
Montgomery County will continue to climb in population was 134,00 in 2000
184,000 in 2012 and still growing....

 

[landman]

I agree.

It's interesting to study population dynamics over time of both deer and humans. :) In the TN county where I currently do the most of my deer hunting (Stewart), I believe more people resided there in 1850 than do today in 2014.

Not for long, Mont. Co is about full and with the new Hwy 79 it is quicker to reach most of Clarksville from Eastern Stewart Co. (Indian Mound in particular) than it is from the majority of Mont. Co.

Land and home prices are already going up, once new leadership gets into Stewart Co I expect growth to explode. Of course, Ft. Campbell, LBL, the refuge and state forest will secure some of its wildness but the newer generation of inherited land holders will start selling off when the price is right.

Only thing right now hurting Stewart Co growth is the vacation and recreational property holders, lots of these people but very few pay any type of contributory tax.

I hope it stays wild, but the East side of the Cumberland River is destined to grow.

Stewart Co will never see growth like Montgomery, not enough infrastructure there or funding to get it
Montgomery County will continue to climb in population was 134,00 in 2000
184,000 in 2012 and still growing....

And Montgomery continues to be a top TN county for Bucks with 9 points or more

 

[Monty]

Another topic several have mentioned is concern over the fact that as deer hunters become a smaller and smaller portion of the total population, eventually we will lose enough political power to protect hunting from the urban/suburban anti-hunting mindset. In my opinion, THAT is exactly why we need to encourage the participation of non-traditional groups into deer hunting. And I'm not talking about drawing in huge numbers of new hunters. I'm talking about drawing in enough members of other interest groups that a positive message about hunting becomes part of those other interest groups' belief systems. For instance, the recent increase in positive press about hunting from the "sustainable foods" interest group, I believe, is going to do wonders for the image of hunting. A positive view of hunting within this interest group will pay huge dividends, as members of this group have a wide web of contacts into other interest groups, that in past, were seen as "enemies" of hunting. Another interest group we should hope gets drawn into deer hunting is the soccer-mom suburbia crowd. We need to find a way to show this group that suburban hunting is safe and effective, as their growing anger over consumption of their expensive landscaping by deer and car-deer collisions begins to open the door for dialogue.

This is a really interesting, thought-provoking thread. Your observations about losing political clout is very much on point, and I'm afraid is predestined given the many demographic and social changes so many on here have accurately mentioned. Portraying true sportsmens' contributions to the changing society is one reason I am so supportive of Hunters for the Hungry program. It is a great example of the good that the many ethical deer hunters can do when teamed with a system that gets needed, healthy protein to the 16% of needy Tennesseans.

At the same time, the discussion about P&Y's position statement about high-fenced hunting on another thread supports the argument here that points out the shifting away from the NA Model of Wildlife Management and the public trust doctrine, which have been central to the gains we've seen in many of the better-managed game species.

 

[Methane]

This is interesting. Thank you.

 

[hunterncoach]

I've had the same thoughts and questions. It all comes down to economics. State agencies and private land owners need funds to preserve hunting land. So the more funds available (which means we need more hunters) then the more "huntable" land there will be available. So. We either all give more to state agencies and pay more for leasin land or we grow our numbers to help out... That's the way I see it. I think educating the new hunters to this problem is vital!!!

 

[eightpointer]

I do think leasing has really hurt deer hunting as well. BUT..I think its also a big thing due to many hunters trespassing and treating the land like crap too.

 

[TheLBLman]

I do think leasing has really hurt deer hunting as well.

Overall, I think leasing has helped more deer hunters than it's hurt, particularly the majority of whom who do not trespass or poach on property they don't have permission to hunt.

Keep in mind much of the reason leasing began (on a bigger scale) in TN was because too many slob hunters were trespassing and poaching, and the idea of leasing became a solution for many landowners to better know who is on their property, while at the same time getting somewhat of a security patrol to help them keep off the trespassers. It wasn't and isn't just about landowners seeking additional revenue.

IMO, one of the main reasons many timber companies pulled their lands from the public hunting programs (turning them into leases to named hunters) was because the general public was trashing the property, and allowing the general public access had become a liability.

As the idea of leasing became better known, many landowners who didn't allow any legal hunting (or only to a person or two) also began leasing, often making lands available that were previously not. It wouldn't surprise me if most of the properties under 200 acres that are currently being leased to hunters were previously not allowing any legal hunting (with permission) at all (or at the least were not allowing any legal access to the general public).

As a side note, many (if not most) of our public hunting lands are also "leased" from the landowners by TWRA.

 

[hunterncoach]

Leased hunting will help save the habitat. Do you all think a program would work where guys purchase whatever land they can (10+ acres) and enroll it in a type of "hunting club" where all members could have access to land put in the club? My thinking is that we are loosing land everyday and most cannot afford 100+ acres of land, but could afford smaller chunks. This would really help preserve habitat for the future...

 

[BSK]

At the same time, the discussion about P&Y's position statement about high-fenced hunting on another thread supports the argument here that points out the shifting away from the NA Model of Wildlife Management and the public trust doctrine, which have been central to the gains we've seen in many of the better-managed game species.

I tend to agree, with the exception that, in my opinion, VERY few hunters really care about P&Y's rules. Because a few are interested, I keep up with P&Y's and B&C's rules. But how many hunters hunt with the hope of entering a buck "in the book?" I think very few.

 

[trealtree]

Another topic several have mentioned is concern over the fact that as deer hunters become a smaller and smaller portion of the total population, eventually we will lose enough political power to protect hunting from the urban/suburban anti-hunting mindset. In my opinion, THAT is exactly why we need to encourage the participation of non-traditional groups into deer hunting. And I'm not talking about drawing in huge numbers of new hunters. I'm talking about drawing in enough members of other interest groups that a positive message about hunting becomes part of those other interest groups' belief systems. For instance, the recent increase in positive press about hunting from the "sustainable foods" interest group, I believe, is going to do wonders for the image of hunting. A positive view of hunting within this interest group will pay huge dividends, as members of this group have a wide web of contacts into other interest groups, that in past, were seen as "enemies" of hunting. Another interest group we should hope gets drawn into deer hunting is the soccer-mom suburbia crowd. We need to find a way to show this group that suburban hunting is safe and effective, as their growing anger over consumption of their expensive landscaping by deer and car-deer collisions begins to open the door for dialogue.

Exactly why I wrote a letter to TWRA suggesting they allow larger caliber air guns for hunting big game. Archery and air guns are much safer than muzzle-loaders and centerfires in an urban environment. However it does not look like it did any good this year...

 

[TN Whitetail Freak]

Need a 1 buck limit

 

[Winchester]

Need a 1 buck limit

You already have one if you want it, just shoot 1 and there you have it!!!! ;)

 

[TLRanger]

Today the TWRA commission talked about and
asked questions about are we at the max capacity
with most seeming to believe the herd needs to
drop some, but enough does are not being harvested

There will never be enough doe being killed as long as we have a three buck limit.......I know people that will kill three spike bucks because they "needed the meat" and never kill a doe.

 

[TN Whitetail Freak]

Hard to shoot one buck if you dont see any worth shooting yea i couldve shot 2 bucks in 2012 that were 2 yr olds but i let walk hoping theyd make another yr well dont think they did oh well....2011 was the last year i killed a buck.... the one buck limit statement i made was said jokingly but on a serious note i would like to see antler restrictions on ALL public grounds....that way that younger buck doesnt get shot and the hunters shoot bigger bucks and does for meat.....i know all hunters hunt for different reasons but when i leave the house im trophy hunting yet i know my odds of seeing a 3 yr old or older is id guess 3% or less....Id be down for a earn a buck program if anything

 

[BSK]

...Id be down for a earn a buck program if anything

Be careful what you wish for. The Earn-A-Buck program on some of the TN National Refuges have decimated their local deer populations.