Deer Decline

[BigGameGuy]

I have heard it mentioned here and a few other places about white-tailed deer decline. I was curious as to where this idea was coming from. Our intention with the creation of Unit L was to decrease the size of the herd. When the hunters failed to make a dent, Mother Nature did with the EHD outbreak of 2007. After the outbreak, Unit L was kept in place to make sure the herd didn't return to previous levels. Our biggest concern now is that harvest once again is not stabilizing the herd. My hope is that we have reached the equilibrium we were seeking but my fear is that bag limits have now been supplanted by freezer space limits. Please keep in mind I am specifically referring to Unit L which comprises over half the state.

 

[Vermin93]

Hijack in progress....

Who is managing Grundy and Sequatchie counties? The one doe that's allowed only during rifle season week 4 is inadequate. Also, we need a 2 buck limit. It would be great if TWRA would fix this. Thank you.

 

[TheLBLman]

I have heard it mentioned here and a few other places about white-tailed deer decline. I was curious as to where this idea was coming from.

I'm sure there are many sources, but in particular I believe what may be driving this:
A combination of improved habitat (in part because of 2013's excessive rainfall and 2014's excessive mast crop), much more hunter-wary female deer, and the tendency of many hunters to over-hunt their "favorite" spots.

I've noted some permanent stand locations from which many female deer were killed annually over the past few years, and the surviving generations seem much more hunter wary than the previous. Over the past couple deer seasons, the deer have appeared to "avoid" these spots, not just during daylight, but even at night, period. This might not have happened to such an extent if there hadn't been such an abundance of nearby food sources. Nearby, and often simply out of sight of those permanent stands, the deer sign (to me) does not seem to indicate much change in deer density over the past few years. Others, cite their fewer deer sightings and seeing fewer deer tracks as evidence of fewer deer.

My take is that (speaking mainly of a localized deer herd covering a few thousand acres in Stewart County) the deer have become more uniformly populated over the area rather than there being "spots" of higher doe-density families separated by large areas more void of deer. And, with some major habitat changes (which have actually occurred over several years), we've gone from an "acorn-driven" herd (mostly hardwood habitat) to a deer herd that has more abundant year-round food sources, and these food sources require little travel, virtually no seasonal range shifting (for food).

Basically, what deer we had were much more "visible" when we had much more mature hardwoods, and less cover. Now, even though we MAY have more deer than we had in 2008, these habitat changes coupled with the super-abundance of deer food two years running, HAS made the deer less visible to most hunters while hunting. And, again, after a few years of higher doe harvests, there is a definite behavioral change in the female deer, mainly that they behave much more like heavily-hunted bucks back when we had extensive "buck-only" deer hunting and an 11-buck limit in Tennessee.

Most deer are quicker to adapt than most deer hunters.
I believe that should we have more normal summer rainfall in 2015, and a more normal mast crop, most hunters will see a lot more deer while hunting than they saw in 2014. This can especially be the case for some individual hunters who give their over-hunted "favorite" stand sites a rest and explore nearby areas, which often means simply hunting a different "spot" only a couple hundred yards away, commonly just far enough that you couldn't see deer from the prior location. Sometimes this is less than 50 yards.

 

[TheLBLman]

One more thing:

Improving the habitat and food sources can have the same hunter "observational" effects as a lower deer density. When deer have an abundance of both cover and food sources, they simply do not move around as much, and there is often little distinction between a "bedding" and a "feeding" area. They're bedding and feeding in the same general area, sometimes days on end, and only making a change when something like a hunter "disturbs" them. They may "shift" only a couple hundred yards where they feed and bed again days on end, never really traveling far enough for many hunters to "see" them, especially when a particular hunter habitually hunts the same stand locations.

 

[TN Whitetail Freak]

I have heard it mentioned here and a few other places about white-tailed deer decline. I was curious as to where this idea was coming from.

I'm sure there are many sources, but in particular I believe what may be driving this:
A combination of improved habitat (in part because of 2013's excessive rainfall and 2014's excessive mast crop), much more hunter-wary female deer, and the tendency of many hunters to over-hunt their "favorite" spots.

he hit it on the head...2014 was a good year and I seen way more deer than 2013....take a guess in what i changed.....ding ding....I hunted over 40 different areas and never hunted the same AREA (not stand) more than 3x......the only thing i changed was being mobile and keeping the animals from patterning me....there is no deer decline IMO.

 

[Hunter 257W]

I haven't observed a decline in the past 8 or 10 years on my land. Now if you go back just beyond that time, I was getting more pictures of doe groups than I do now. If you want to talk about daytime sightings while hunting, I have definitely noticed that does are scarce. They have learned that they are targets as much as bucks and the past few seasons I see about as many bucks as I do does. And I only have two permanent stands and hardly use them. I like to move and usually sit on a turkey stool where ever the wind will allow me to on any given day.

Bucks have slowly improved in age somewhat in the past 5 years. I get pictures of a couple of 3 year olds every Summer and Fall. Someday I hope to get record of a 4 year old crossing my property. :)

 

[AT Hiker]

We no longer see large "herds" anymore, its just doe groups of 3-5. At first glance you would think decline. I agree with Wes in that I think deer are more spread out now instead of being stacked on top of each other.

Is their a decline or not? I dont know, I just know my observations and yes we see less deer ( this includes driving at night and during the off season while we are out working on the farm.). But we see a wider range of deer, meaning places we didnt hunt before because of lack of deer sightings now produce deer.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shed Hunter]

Your biggest concern is that harvest isn't stabalizing the herd?

What makes you think the herd isn't stabalizing?

Even though I don't see quite as many deer as I used to, I agree we certainly aren't dealing with a significant decline, but I certainly don't see more than I used to and have no reason to believe there are more deer than there used to be.

 

[TX300mag]

Because I don't live on (or even near) my hunting grounds, I don't run camera a camera census. I'm aware of the fact that my perception may not be an accurate representation of what the actual population is, but I haven't noticed a decline from a "hunter" perspective on properties that I've hunted for several years.

I didn't hunt as much in TN as normal this year (mainly MZ, but every day of MZ), but it was fantastic as far as deer sightings on public and private land. Buck sightings-way above average. Doe sightings-a little above. Fawn sightings, better than last couple of years.

 

[BigGameGuy]

Darn good post Wes.

Master - if you look at our harvest numbers we have pretty much flat-lined. My concern is that only the hunter harvest has flatlined and the population continues to go up. In other words, our hunters are killing all they will kill and no more, hence the flat line. Obviously we don't know the answer to that just yet but our plan is to conduct another statewide deer thermal survey next year.

 

[Shed Hunter]

Darn good post Wes.

Master Chief- if you look at our harvest numbers we have pretty much flat-lined. My concern is that only the hunter harvest has flatlined and the population continues to go up. In other words, our hunters are killing all they will kill and no more, hence the flat line. Obviously we don't know the answer to that just yet but our plan is to conduct another statewide deer thermal survey next year.

That is very interesting to look at. I went back several years on the numbers and harvests are pretty even throughout

I'm excited to see what the surveying says.

 

[TX300mag]

I think a lot of hunters use a 2006 population as the standard. If they're not seeing the numbers of deer that they did then, then the population must have been decimated by consistently stable harvest levels. This can affect our overall outlook.

 

[BSK]

I think a lot of hunters use a 2006 population as the standard.

I agree, and that 2006 population--in Unit L--was too high. Without question there was a major decline in deer population following the 2007 EHD outbreak, but populations are on the rebound. And as BGG mentioned, what worries me is the "flat" harvest numbers with the indication that populations may be rebounding fairly quickly in the last year or two. We could be headed towards another over-population problem in the near the future (in some areas).

For the region where I collect the most data (western Highland Rim), below is real data that exemplifies what I'm seeing region-wide. The population bottomed out somewhere around 2009 and has been slowly rebounding, but the last data point suggests a possible rapid acceleration of that rebound:

 

[TX300mag]

I'm not claiming to know what the population IS since I really only have my own experiences to go by. They're obviously different from other hunters in Unit L, so I don't place TOO much value in hunter perception alone (mine includes).

Many hunters (not on this board) are unaware that 2006 was too high and are also unaware of the root cause of the outbreak-therefore that population is what they feel TWRA should manage for.

 

[TheLBLman]

And as BGG mentioned, what worries me is the "flat" harvest numbers with the indication that populations may be rebounding fairly quickly in the last year or two. We could be headed towards another over-population problem in the near the future (in some areas).

For the region where I collect the most data (western Highland Rim), below is real data that exemplifies what I'm seeing region-wide. The population bottomed out somewhere around 2009 and has been slowly rebounding, but the last data point suggests a possible rapid acceleration of that rebound.

I agree, and also believe the complexities of our trying to "get a handle" on all this have never been greater.

Consider those "flat" harvest numbers.
Compared to say 1995 and earlier, these harvest numbers have little correlation to the deer herd, very unlike times past.

In times past, most hunters actually took a shot at EVERY legal deer they had an opportunity. Not only does a huge segment of today's deer hunters instead routinely "give a pass" to most legal deer they COULD kill, but we're furthermore discussing the complexities of "practical" limits. In times past, perhaps there was more a "newness" to deer hunting, and no matter how "impractical", most hunters wanted to kill every deer they legally could, often not worrying about the difficulties of getting that deer out of the woods, nor the "practicality" of killing many deer in a single year.

Today, we hunters are more "practical" than in times past, and maybe a bit more lazy, as it is often the ease of getting a doe to the truck that determines whether it is "harvested" or allowed to walk.

 

[TheLBLman]

Complicating things more, it may very well be that many hunters are totally happy deer hunting, even if they seldom kill a deer. Actually killing a deer can cost us great hunting opportunities. In other words, we may be valuing the hunting more than the killing, even though killing an animal is an important part of our deer hunting. At issue: How often?

Personally, two or three deer annually is about all I want to process, and similar seems to apply to most deer hunters. Part of the issue is becoming, "What deer will my two or three be?" Will it be 3 bucks or 2 bucks & a doe? Or will it be 1 buck & a doe, or 1 buck and 2 does? The implications of the sex ratio of the collective hunters' "2 or 3" deer annually are HUGE.

Most hunters seem to prefer killing bucks, yet will happily eat a doe. Bucks have antlers. Doesn't matter how small or how large, most hunters consider any deer with any antlers more a "trophy" than any deer without antlers. So in the context of this "practical" limit of 2 or 3 deer a year, and with a 3-buck limit, there may be no need for most hunters to ever kill a doe. This is of course assuming these hunters are focused more on their personal trophies than the hunters' roles in deer management. Is it most, or just some?

Regarding most hunters I know who have gone several years taking more female than male deer, they seem to have tired a bit from taking so many, and are more likely to let a doe walk than three years ago. This may be in part due to their perception we have fewer deer, and their not wanting there to be any fewer. My thoughts are more in line with BGG's in that these hunter perceptions of fewer deer may be just the opposite of a reality we may have a lot more deer than we think.

I'm also observing a trend of less annual hunting per hunter. Yet, the collective harvest is little changed year to year? This trend of less hunting per hunter is something I've been particularly aware for at least the past decade. But it becomes more significant when a particular hunter goes out a time or two and sees fewer deer than he was expecting, and/or kills a big buck ----- he then hunts even less for the remainder of the deer season ----- this was a significant happening over the past two years.

Hunter mindsets have definitely changed over time. To make a very broad statement, more hunters seem to value the overall quality of "a" hunting experience more than "how many" hunting experiences they have in a year, i.e. "quality" experiences over the "quantity" of experiences. Part of this is evidenced by a fraction as much post-rut deer hunting as in times past. And how many "youth" hunters actually participate in the January youth-only hunt now?

"Think" about it. The statewide annual deer harvest hasn't really changed much over the past few years, although it looks like hunters are choosing to kill more bucks at the expense of killing fewer does. It would seem probable we have a growing deer herd, it's true density somewhat camouflaged over the past two years by Mother Nature.

 

[BSK]

Personally, two or three deer annually is about all I want to process, and similar seems to apply to most deer hunters.

I don't remember where I saw the number, but I remember reading or hearing that, for TN, the average hunter didn't want to deal with more than 3 deer per year.

 

[megalomaniac]

Master - if you look at our harvest numbers we have pretty much flat-lined. My concern is that only the hunter harvest has flatlined and the population continues to go up. In other words, our hunters are killing all they will kill and no more, hence the flat line. Obviously we don't know the answer to that just yet but our plan is to conduct another statewide deer thermal survey next year.

Wow, that's they very best argument I've ever heard for reducing buck limits. Fill the freezer with does, rather than bucks... win-win for the herd and the hunters.

 

[stik]

Master - if you look at our harvest numbers we have pretty much flat-lined. My concern is that only the hunter harvest has flatlined and the population continues to go up. In other words, our hunters are killing all they will kill and no more, hence the flat line. Obviously we don't know the answer to that just yet but our plan is to conduct another statewide deer thermal survey next year.

Wow, that's they very best argument I've ever heard for reducing buck limits. Fill the freezer with does, rather than bucks... win-win for the herd and the hunters.

most who tag out on 2 or fewer bucks will quit hunting and the doe harvest would suffer.

 

[megalomaniac]

Master - if you look at our harvest numbers we have pretty much flat-lined. My concern is that only the hunter harvest has flatlined and the population continues to go up. In other words, our hunters are killing all they will kill and no more, hence the flat line. Obviously we don't know the answer to that just yet but our plan is to conduct another statewide deer thermal survey next year.

Wow, that's they very best argument I've ever heard for reducing buck limits. Fill the freezer with does, rather than bucks... win-win for the herd and the hunters.

most who tag out on 2 or fewer bucks will quit hunting and the doe harvest would suffer.

The horn hunters weren't shooting does to begin with, so if they shot zero does before buck limits were reduced, they wouldn't shoot any fewer does than that after limits reduced.

 

[stik]

The horn hunters weren't shooting does to begin with, so if they shot zero does before buck limits were reduced, they wouldn't shoot any fewer does than that after limits reduced.

i am far from a horn hunter but i would not hunt if bucks were not legal.

 

[Shed Hunter]

y"]Master - if you look at our harvest numbers we have pretty much flat-lined. My concern is that only the hunter harvest has flatlined and the population continues to go up. In other words, our hunters are killing all they will kill and no more, hence the flat line. Obviously we don't know the answer to that just yet but our plan is to conduct another statewide deer thermal survey next year.

Wow, that's they very best argument I've ever heard for reducing buck limits. Fill the freezer with does, rather than bucks... win-win for the herd and the hunters.

most who tag out on 2 or fewer bucks will quit hunting and the doe harvest would suffer.

The horn hunters weren't shooting does to begin with, so if they shot zero does before buck limits were reduced, they wouldn't shoot any fewer does than that after limits reduced.[/quote]

Exactly. The buck limit has nothing to do with what "horn hunters" shoot in terms of does.

A lower buck limit would be better for overall herd reduction as meat hunters will have to kill more does to make up for the yearling or two they couldn't shoot. The herd will improve because instead of that skew we see in harvest dorected towards bucks we will see more doe harvests. It's a win win.

If the biologists are truly concerned about the herd rebounding too rapidly you need to influemce more doe kills.

BSK-IF BGG's dire concern is right, perhaps it would be a good idea for Unit L to go to an initial one buck limit followed by an earn a buck system for the following two buck tags? (Or only earn a buck for the last tag) You've seen how well the extreme earn a buck method worked for the refuge in terms of herd reduction.. How about a bit less extreme to improve in small steps?

If herd reduction is needed, LESS BUCK HARVEST MORE DOE HARVEST. Simple BGG.. Your problem is roughly 58% of the harvest is male deer. Skew that towards does a bit more and the problem will be solved.



Also Wes mentioned habitat increase.. To me this sounds like a reason a larger herd is okay. If our habitat is getting better, we can sustain more deer.

 

[Shed Hunter]

The horn hunters weren't shooting does to begin with, so if they shot zero does before buck limits were reduced, they wouldn't shoot any fewer does than that after limits reduced.

i am far from a horn hunter but i would not hunt if bucks were not legal.

Then you are a "horn hunter" but you are in denial. If meat was what you really cared about, you would be out hunting for that and not giving a darn.

 

[stik]

there are many areas that cannot support an increased doe harvest.

 

[Shed Hunter]

there are many areas that cannot support an increased doe harvest.

We are talking unit L here and based on BGG's post the herd is growing too rapidly (I'm not saying it is.. I have no idea, but there are a few common sense approaches that can be done to fix any problem)

The "I want to kill a bunch of little bucks and don't care about killing does" attitude is no good for anyone.

 

[stik]

The horn hunters weren't shooting does to begin with, so if they shot zero does before buck limits were reduced, they wouldn't shoot any fewer does than that after limits reduced.

i am far from a horn hunter but i would not hunt if bucks were not legal.

Then you are a "horn hunter" but you are in denial. If meat was what you really cared about, you would be out hunting for that and not giving a darn.

obviously i have 2 in the freezer if bucks are no longer legal. i am not going to sit there and watch the "buck-of-a-lifetime" walk off because bucks are not legal. and for the record, i rarely hunt buck only times if i have another option. i am a DEER hunter.

 

[Shed Hunter]

]

The horn hunters weren't shooting does to begin with, so if they shot zero does before buck limits were reduced, they wouldn't shoot any fewer does than that after limits reduced.

i am far from a horn hunter but i would not hunt if bucks were not legal.

Then you are a "horn hunter" but you are in denial. If meat was what you really cared about, you would be out hunting for that and not giving a darn.

obviously i have 2 in the freezer if bucks are no longer legal. i am not going to sit there and watch the "buck-of-a-lifetime" walk off because bucks are not legal. and for the record, i rarely hunt buck only times if i have another option. i am a DEER hunter.[/quote]

Be more patient in terms of the bucks you shoot? If you really want that "buck of a lifetime" save a tag for him and shoot a doe instead of another buck?

It's like I told my dad this year (who tagged out on three little bucks and regretted all of them but one) IF FOR ANY REASON YOU REGRET WHAT YOU KILL, STOP PULLING THE TRIGGER . And yes, when you see that buck of a lifetime and cant shoot him because you tagged out already, and wish you could shoot him-you regret what you had already killed.

 

[stik]

i have never regretted any deer i have shot.

there is absolutely no biological reason to reduce the limit.

 

[TheLBLman]

. . . . . our harvest numbers we have pretty much flat-lined. My concern is that only the hunter harvest has flatlined and the population continues to go up. In other words, our hunters are killing all they will kill and no more, hence the flat line.

Wow, that's they very best argument I've ever heard for reducing buck limits. Fill the freezer with does, rather than bucks... win-win for the herd and the hunters.

x 2
IMO, a more "balanced" sex harvest is more ideal. It also helps to "balance" the harvest better in terms of the actual deer density. If the deer population is going higher, there are more bucks killed and more does killed. If the deer population is going lower, there are fewer bucks killed and fewer does killed. To the extent our hunting is a herd management tool, the ongoing deer population is totally controlled by the doe harvest.

most who tag out on 2 or fewer bucks will quit hunting and the doe harvest would suffer.

That does not seem to be the case, as evidenced by our neighboring State of Kentucky's deer regs where most KY hunters head afield with a 1-buck & 1-doe limit. For many, many years, KY has had a higher percentage of female deer in their total harvest than TN. There may occasionally be a year or two of anomalies, but over time, a lower buck limit equates to a higher percentage of the total deer harvest being female.

 

[TheLBLman]

there is absolutely no biological reason to reduce the limit.

And there is absolutely no biological reason for the buck limit to be three.

But there are biological reasons to strive for a balanced-sex harvest.