Deer Decline

[Shed Hunter]

i have never regretted any deer i have shot.

there is absolutely no biological reason to reduce the limit.

If unit L is seeing too many deer and hunter harvest cannot maintain herd balance (which this is not my theory.. It is TWRAs), then we must look for a solution. Now let's debate about how we can do that? Okay, we can mandate that all landowners improve the habitat on their property so we can hold more deer. Wait.. Just a temporary fix. Ten years from now hunter harvest still can't keep up with the herd.. Even the better habitat can't hold what the herd has became. Okay that didn't work.. Idea #2.. Increase predation. Okay the abundance of coyotes is taking out fawns pretty good. Ten years later-holy moly, coyotes have wiped out other prey species as a result of the huge increase in predation for deer.. Dadgum.. That didn't work either. Let's go to idea #3.. Harvest management. Hmm.. We have a lot of bucks being killed and a fair amount of does, but this isn't maintaining the herd. How can we influence less reproduction? How about we try to influence more doe harvest in areas that need it (i.e. apparently unit L) But, how are we going to do that if hunters aren't even capable of using the doe limits we already have for them? Simple. Adjust so that freezer space either must be filled with does rather than bucks or create a system where hunters must take a doe in order to tag out on bucks.

We can still keep the 3 buck limit, but IF TWRA finds our herd is rebounding far too rapidly, perhaps it is time to regulate where a doe must be taken by those hunters that choose only to shoot bucks.

To me the best compromise is a 3 buck limit in which the final tag must be earned by harvesting a doe. If numbers continue to rise too high, make it the second tag as well.

 

[TheLBLman]

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)

First, I don't think BGG's has a "dire" concern about this. More an observation that's somewhat a concern.
Secondly, I'm totally opposed to any significant complication of the deer regs, especially when there's no real need.
All we need are periodic "carburetor" adjustments, and they should be made with "simplicity" being a high priority.
A "simple" 2-buck limit would probably be all that's necessary in Unit L, without any other changes.

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.

I believe this is a very temporary phenomena, caused by all the stars being aligned just right for the past 3 years. Going back approximately a decade, we've statewide seen more mature hardwoods thinned and clear-cut than in times past (at least percentage-wise). The above-average rate of tree-thinning and clear-cutting has produced more superior deer habitat and food ---- but it is temporary in nature. As the new trees growing in those clear-cuts shade out the understory more with each passing year, much of the deer food is gone 5 years later, and same happens with hardwood select cuts (thinning).

More recently, it was a combination of 2013's two years of rainfall in a single year + 2014's bumper mast crop adding to that somewhat improved habitat. We could have a drought this summer and mast failure this fall, pretty much reversing the whole equation.

 

[stik]

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.

the hunting has been improving for the last 7-10 years with the current limits. there is no need for further restrictions.

 

[TheLBLman]

Who's talking restrictions?

If we're talking about killing 3 deer in a year, killing 2 bucks & 1 doe is still 3 deer.

We currently have more "restrictions" regarding taking a doe than taking a buck.
So, imo, creating more opportunity to take "a" doe would actually be LESS "restrictive" to most hunters.

 

[Shed Hunter]

Wes, I would certainly be happy to see the 2 buck limit.

I would like to see an argument from ANYONE saying there is more biological reason to keep a 3 buck limit than to reduce it.

 

[stik]

Wes, I would certainly be happy to see the 2 buck limit.

I would like to see an argument from ANYONE saying there is more biological reason to keep a 3 buck limit than to reduce it.

there is NO biological reason to reduce it. MOST tennessee hunters prefer the 3 buck(or even higher) limit.

 

[Shed Hunter]

Wes, I would certainly be happy to see the 2 buck limit.

I would like to see an argument from ANYONE saying there is more biological reason to keep a 3 buck limit than to reduce it.

there is NO biological reason to reduce it. MOST tennessee hunters prefer the 3 buck(or even higher) limit.

There IS biological reason to reduce it and it has already been stated.

Prove what megalomaniac, wes, or even I said to be biologically incorrect and you can have that "there is no biological reason" argument.

 

[stik]

Wes, I would certainly be happy to see the 2 buck limit.

I would like to see an argument from ANYONE saying there is more biological reason to keep a 3 buck limit than to reduce it.

there is NO biological reason to reduce it. MOST tennessee hunters prefer the 3 buck(or even higher) limit.

There IS biological reason to reduce it and it has already been stated.

Prove what megalomaniac, wes, or even I said to be biologically incorrect and you can have that "there is no biological reason" argument.

those reasons are being accomplished under the current limits.

 

[Shed Hunter]

]uote="stik"]

Wes, I would certainly be happy to see the 2 buck limit.

I would like to see an argument from ANYONE saying there is more biological reason to keep a 3 buck limit than to reduce it.

there is NO biological reason to reduce it. MOST tennessee hunters prefer the 3 buck(or even higher) limit.

There IS biological reason to reduce it and it has already been stated.

Prove what megalomaniac, wes, or even I said to be biologically incorrect and you can have that "there is no biological reason" argument.[/quote]
those reasons are being accomplished under the current limits.[/quote]

Where is your evidence for this?

It appears sex ratio of the harvest using data provided by TWRA is NOT balanced. A minor adjustment could fix that. TWRA theorizes at this point the herd needs to be maintained more, but we'll have to wait 'til next year to confirm

 

[TX300mag]

I know this sounds silly to most of us, but I've had several people tell me they WON'T spent the $20 for the type 94 permit, so they kill multiple bucks because that's their only option.

Drop the type 94 requirement for antlerless and replace it with a $20 antlered tag for the second and again for third buck.

Win-win-win situation if it creates a little additional revenue for TWRA as well.

 

[Lost Lake]

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.

It'll be interesting to see what thermal imaging tells us.

 

[Hunter 257W]

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.

All this feverish debate is hinging on a very shaky "thinking out loud" comment made my BigGameGuy that may or may not be actual fact. He merely said that there is a POTENTIAL that the flat-lined harvest numbers may be due to hunter willingness to shoot more deer than that. He didn't say that had been proven to be true. I read this as his being open minded to any and all indicators of herd health/growth/etc. To take this as TWRA saying the deer herd is growing out of control is a bit presumptuous in my opinion.

 

[TX300mag]

I'll theorize a factor in modest increase in antlered harvest over the last few years. I think it's a result of overall hunting improvement. Speaking personally, the antlered harvest opportunity for bucks I do/would pull the trigger on have increased exponentially in the last five years. I've gone from going buckless more years than not to having opportunities to kill bucks each year. Some of these bucks have been "bonus" bucks but I'll count them if they're in Unit L.

I did go buckless year before last, but not because of opportunity (I missed one). I also let one walk I might have hung on the wall because I hadn't killed a doe yet. Last year I backed out of my main hunting spot after having seeing multiple bucks before and after killing one (which is all I want to kill from any one property).

 

[ImThere]

I bet most does are killed on public land. I bet earn a buck would make a SERIOUS impact on the herd with private land owner killing a doe to earn a buck.

 

[scn]

I bet most does are killed on public land. I bet earn a buck would make a SERIOUS impact on the herd with private land owner killing a doe to earn a buck.

Imagine how enforceable that would be with the current check in system.

 

[TX300mag]

I bet most does are killed on public land. I bet earn a buck would make a SERIOUS impact on the herd with private land owner killing a doe to earn a buck.

ImThere, check the antlerless harvest for WMA and you'll see that the opposite is actually true.

For instance: Natchez Trace is smack dab in the middle of Unit L. I think there was just under one antlerless killed per 500 acres last time I checked. From my experience IF there was a way to average private land harvest it would be MANY times as high.

 

[PillsburyDoughboy]

Im not in favor of the earn a buck program. While I think it sounds good on the surface it may not be the best match for every hunter out there nor may it be the best program for maturing bucks on every parcel in TN.

I think it would be highly unfair for the hunter that opening day he sees a monster of a lifetime and is unable to harvest him.

And what about the guys that only get to hunt one day a year or one weekend a year due to family or work obligations? Are you going to suggest to that person that he has to kill a doe before he can earn a buck tag?

Right now TN has one of the fairest systems in the US. There have been seasons where I limited out on my buck tags early and there are some seasons where I don't even kill a buck either by choice or by circumstances.

I think it should be up to each and every hunter how they hunt and how they manage thier property. Within the confines of the TWRA regulations of course.

TWRA are pretty smart cookies. They do not hand out all these buck tags and doe tags for a reason. They know how to manage herds statewide for the better of the herd.

 

[ImThere]

I bet most does are killed on public land. I bet earn a buck would make a SERIOUS impact on the herd with private land owner killing a doe to earn a buck.

Imagine how enforceable that would be with the current check in system.

I agree

 

[ImThere]

I bet most does are killed on public land. I bet earn a buck would make a SERIOUS impact on the herd with private land owner killing a doe to earn a buck.

ImThere, check the antlerless harvest for WMA and you'll see that the opposite is actually true.

For instance: Natchez Trace is smack dab in the middle of Unit L. I think there was just under one antlerless killed per 500 acres last time I checked. From my experience IF there was a way to average private land harvest it would be MANY times as high.

It would save a few spikes maybe

 

[stik]

those reasons are being accomplished under the current limits.

Where is your evidence for this?

it has gone from 32% in 1994 to 45% in 2004.

 

[Shed Hunter]

those reasons are being accomplished under the current limits.

Where is your evidence for this?

it has gone from 32% in 1994 to 45% in 2004.

What is "it"

 

[TX300mag]

I bet most does are killed on public land. I bet earn a buck would make a SERIOUS impact on the herd with private land owner killing a doe to earn a buck.

ImThere, check the antlerless harvest for WMA and you'll see that the opposite is actually true.

For instance: Natchez Trace is smack dab in the middle of Unit L. I think there was just under one antlerless killed per 500 acres last time I checked. From my experience IF there was a way to average private land harvest it would be MANY times as high.

It would save a few spikes

I don't doubt at all the impact it would make, public or private. TNWR has had the "doe first" rule for a a while now. The population there is definitely under control now.

I know a few (me included) who have watched very nice bucks tease them.

 

[stik]

What is "it"

the percentage of does in the kill

 

[BigGameGuy]

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.

There is a huge problem with using percentages when looking at kill numbers. Though KY was killing a higher percentage of does, for a while, they were also killing far less does per square mile. Think about it, you can kill 100% does and your deer herd could skyrocket.

 

[deerchaser007]

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.

I think its a mixture of hunter observations in heavily hunted multiple sq miles seeing fewer deer due to those deer being pressured, and in some areas the herd has probably sustained at or under carrying capacity and hunters in this state are not use to that at all. I feel we still have areas in any given county that is above carrying capacity, but many that is at or below. Just depends on where that hunter is in that county and how much hunting exist within their hunting area.The increased pressure on the eastern side of unit L is more likely due to east TN hunters coming here to seek out more opportunity, much like what west tn was in the 90's. East TN hunters have no reason to go far west anymore with unit L being closer. This is also why the herd numbers continue to increase in the western counties causing much of that area to potentially go above carrying capacity as before the EHD outbreak.
I'm sure most hunters understand why unit L was established and continued, but as long as they continue to see fewer and fewer deer they will question its long term affects. All it would take is consecutive years of poor fawn recruitment to negatively effect the deer herd in some areas of unit L for an extended period. Most managers and biologist have this magic number of a 50/50 harvest ratio and the herd will sustain. That is not always the case. Not on a single sq mile nor across a whole state. Some areas may need a 60/40 doe/buck harvest, some areas 50/50, but some may only need a 40/60 harvest ratio and sustain, some very poor soil and habitat areas even less. So were are some of these declines hunters speak of, its in those areas with poorer soil and habitat that have took out a large percentage of their healthiest deer since unit L started, and fawn recruitment is lower due to poor habitat and large percent of the doe population is young and not having multiple surviving offsprings. Even in areas with good soil, Nashville basin type soil can have this problem. Even though the soil is good the habitat in that soil is very poor. The eastern highland rim is ideal for this due to cedar glades. A 50/50 harvest may not be adequate for habitat areas such as this, could be having a negative effect on the total population thru poor fawn recruitment. I know my total deer count is down 70 percent in the area I hunt since 2011, and fawn recruitment is worse than the years prior to 2011. SO, its area specific based on several different factors IMO.

 

[deerchaser007]

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.[/quot

Need that survey, cause its just as likely the reason for the flatline is hunters are not seeing deer to harvest causing the flatline. I hunted harder this year than the past 2, and I still could not get a single deer for freezer. I seen a grand total of 6 deer from 8 different stand locations on two differ properties.

 

[deerchaser007]

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:

What percentage of that data is collected from Humphreys county? Only reason I ask is Humphreys is the only county in that general area that has not returned to near 2006 total harvest. Its flatlined around 1000 less total deer harvest compared to 2006. Perry county has nearly doubled their harvest since 2006, but it was late in the game to become unit L. BUT, something seems strange about Humphreys. Has it been totally leased up by trophyist the past 10 years?

 

[deerchaser007]

I know this sounds silly to most of us, but I've had several people tell me they WON'T spent the $20 for the type 94 permit, so they kill multiple bucks because that's their only option.

Drop the type 94 requirement for antlerless and replace it with a $20 antlered tag for the second and again for third buck.

Win-win-win situation if it creates a little additional revenue for TWRA as well.

You nailed it brother! Its amazing to me the amount of folks that plan on just purchasing the necessary license next year with increase, and the type 94 is not one of them. Gonna be bad news for sex ratio's in all counties if that happens. Facts are there, most people don't wanna mess with more than 2 or 3 deer. I can get 3 bucks and 4 spring toms for the price of one big game stamp, one regular license. Why pay for the type 94 to shoot a doe, If I shoot 1 buck,i will shoot another buck and not pay for the extra stamp. I'm a diehard QDM guy, but I'm not forking over that extra cash to kill just one doe! That's crazy! The type 94 stamp is useless to most hunters. TWRA needs a spring turkey stamp for 4 toms, and a big game stamp that allows 1 buck and 1 doe and fall turkey per county regs. If a hunter chooses to shoot another buck and doe they buy another stamp, limit of 3 stamps. That's my opinion. It would be interesting to see what harvest totals would look like under that scenario.

 

[TheLBLman]

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.

There is a huge problem with using percentages when looking at kill numbers. Though KY was killing a higher percentage of does, for a while, they were also killing far less does per square mile.

Your point well taken, but the real huge problem is not looking at all the data possible, which includes using percentage.

Much of the reason KY was killing fewer doe per square mile was because their number of deer per square mile was purposefully managed to be low, i.e. fewer deer existed, so fewer doe should be killed. But even with fewer deer per square mile, with more balanced buck:doe ratios, more of those deer could be bucks, and very well-fed bucks with fewer total deer per square mile. And very rut-active bucks, more visible to hunters, with more of them competing for those does.

Think about it, you can kill 100% does and your deer herd could skyrocket.

Very true.
We could kill one deer on a WMA, and if that one deer is a doe, 100% of the harvest was female. You are correct in that percentages themselves can be misleading in the absence of additional data. One reason I like regulations that allow for a more "balanced-sex" deer harvest is I believe harvesting in near equal-sex numbers typically is more correlated to both increasing or declining deer densities vs. regs that skew the harvest towards either sex. "Buck-only" obviously skews the harvest towards males; "earn-a-buck" greatly skews the harvest towards females; I generally like neither of those. By contrast, "balanced-sex" harvests are more self-regulating in that if fewer bucks are taken (because of a lower deer population), fewer doe will also be taken. If the deer population goes up, more bucks get taken, so do more female deer, i.e. it all "balances" out better.

I do like the way Kentucky gives most of their hunters "choice" in taking ANY deer anytime, at least until and unless hunter has killed "a" deer. Even better, they do this WITHOUT charging extra for being able to kill "a" doe. Very simple, very balanced. By comparison, 100% of the time, even in Unit L, Tennessee hunters are charged extra to kill "a" doe. (This is not a problem to me personally nor to most avid hunters, but that extra cost is the reason many hunters are afield under "buck-only" regs, even in Unit L.)

 

[TheLBLman]

Drop the type 94 requirement for antlerless and replace it with a $20 antlered tag for the second and again for third buck.

Win-win-win situation if it creates a little additional revenue for TWRA as well.

I think this is an EXCELLENT idea.

The basic "gun" deer hunting license could come simply with the privilege of taking "one antlered & one antlerless". It currently comes with the privilege of taking "two antlered" deer, so it would remain two "deer". The Type 94 could continue, but be used for the privilege of taking more DEER, i.e. "one more antlered & one more antlerless".

And, little or nothing would need be changed regarding the archery & muzzleloading permits.

Just go to a simple 2-buck limit, but that 2nd buck costs at least as much as that 2nd doe.
Those who regularly kill a deer or two a year would pay no more than now, but many might be killing a doe and a buck instead of two bucks, or a doe instead of a buck. Those who regularly purchase archery, muzzleloader, or sportsmen's licenses would be paying no more. In fact, unless a particular hunter expected or wanted the privilege of killing more than 1 buck & 1 doe, he would be getting a much better deal, and not need to purchase a Type 94.