You should look into some of the stuff happening in MN. You actually have a DNR that is shooting for single digit deer per square mile numbers in many zones and they have made it there apparently.
Deer population & hunter success in decline?
- Thread starter PickettSFHunter
- Start date
deerhunter10
Well-Known Member
I would say its because more and more hunters are going the trophy route. and I don't see in Tennessee a declining. but that's just me. the age of if its brown its down is starting to dwindle down I think. im kind of glad it is. but I think that's why the success rate is going down if it is at all. but im not the biologist just what ive seen kind of.
I personally have been very successful over the last few years. Due to education and QDM activities, we are harvesting older deer. Additionally, our deer weight averages have slightly gone up. I can't give data on deer observation statistics as we haven't keep accurate data.
Deer numbers will increase and decrease in cycles. Mother nature and disease have hurt deer populations over the last decade. (EHD, CWD, Droughts, extreme weather conditions)
http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubbthr ... er=3646502
I think the liberal doe harvest policy could be reducing the herd. With all this said, I believe our wildlife commission uses micro-analysis with these considerations to determine the best regional management plans for our deer herd. In reference to the buck limit discussions here at TNDEER, I support changes to harvest numbers to grow the herd, but do not care for the Texas style "Trophy Management" plans.
Deer numbers will increase and decrease in cycles. Mother nature and disease have hurt deer populations over the last decade. (EHD, CWD, Droughts, extreme weather conditions)
http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubbthr ... er=3646502
I think the liberal doe harvest policy could be reducing the herd. With all this said, I believe our wildlife commission uses micro-analysis with these considerations to determine the best regional management plans for our deer herd. In reference to the buck limit discussions here at TNDEER, I support changes to harvest numbers to grow the herd, but do not care for the Texas style "Trophy Management" plans.
BSK
Well-Known Member
Re: Deer population & hunter success in decline?
Poser,
First let me point out the obvious: the author's main point. The QDMA put out press releases advertising their summit with "the sky is falling" rhetoric about our vanishing deer herds. I and many others were highly critical of the organization for such alarmist rhetoric. Then their symposium, including hundreds of biologists and other "vested interests," doesn't find that declining deer populations should make their "Top 10 list" of concerns about deer and deer hunting. Hmmmm...
That said, I do agree that in at least some sections of the country, deer populations are down significantly, especially in the agricultural Midwest--a part of deer country that gets a lot of press. In addition, most parts of whitetail country are seeing deer populations below what they were during the deer population highs that occurred around the turn of the Century. I wish I had detailed data from every state so that I could say definitively what is going on, but lacking that, my personal beliefs on what hunters are seeing are:
1) The agricultural Midwest is seeing a much reduced deer population primarily due to the ultra-severe EHD outbreak that occurred in that region the late summer of 2012. I have some pretty good trail-camera data from hunters and managers in that region suggesting some locations lost at least 50% of their deer population during the outbreak. In past outbreaks, deer populations rebounded fairly quickly, even from severe outbreaks. But "in the past" ultraliberal doe harvest limits were not in place. As I believe we've seen in TN since our last big EHD outbreak (2007), a major decline in deer population while liberal doe harvest limits are in place, experience much slower population rebound. In fact, I don't think TN's deer population has fully rebound from our outbreak 7 years ago (and I consider that a very good thing, as in places, our population was too high at the time of the outbreak). So for the Midwest, a big deer die-off in the midst of liberal doe harvest policies will, in my opinion, definitely experience a slow population rebound, and may actually never see a full rebound. Whether or not this is a good thing for the Midwest is another question, as their biologically carrying capacity is so astronomically high.
2) In the Southeast, Atlantic Coast states, and far North (forested regions of the northern tier of states), deer densities are lower because they needed to be. Back when I first started working in private land management, the #1 PROBLEM I witnessed across the Southeast and Atlantic Coast states was not poor sex ratios or poor buck age structure (although these problems DID exist). The #1 problem was deer overpopulation. I observed VAST areas of these regions displaying severe over-browsing of the habitat by deer. Thankfully, these regions' wildlife biologists and hunters "got the message" and both allowed and participated in more liberal doe harvests, with the expressed purpose of reducing deer densities. At that, they have been effective, for the good of the remaining deer population and the habitat (as well as all the other animal species that use the same habitat). Of course, now hunters will have to accept what goes along with a lower deer density produced through higher antlerless harvests: fewer deer which means sightings going down; and antlerless deer that have become as hunter-shy as bucks making them even less observable. Both of these lead to fewer deer seen and sometimes lower harvest success rates. It's a trade-off: fewer but healthier/larger deer that are harder to hunt and kill. However, I do not believe that any widespread areas of these regions have dangerously low deer populations. They simply have reduced populations that are more hunter-shy, which reduces hunter observations and harvests.
Poser,
First let me point out the obvious: the author's main point. The QDMA put out press releases advertising their summit with "the sky is falling" rhetoric about our vanishing deer herds. I and many others were highly critical of the organization for such alarmist rhetoric. Then their symposium, including hundreds of biologists and other "vested interests," doesn't find that declining deer populations should make their "Top 10 list" of concerns about deer and deer hunting. Hmmmm...
That said, I do agree that in at least some sections of the country, deer populations are down significantly, especially in the agricultural Midwest--a part of deer country that gets a lot of press. In addition, most parts of whitetail country are seeing deer populations below what they were during the deer population highs that occurred around the turn of the Century. I wish I had detailed data from every state so that I could say definitively what is going on, but lacking that, my personal beliefs on what hunters are seeing are:
1) The agricultural Midwest is seeing a much reduced deer population primarily due to the ultra-severe EHD outbreak that occurred in that region the late summer of 2012. I have some pretty good trail-camera data from hunters and managers in that region suggesting some locations lost at least 50% of their deer population during the outbreak. In past outbreaks, deer populations rebounded fairly quickly, even from severe outbreaks. But "in the past" ultraliberal doe harvest limits were not in place. As I believe we've seen in TN since our last big EHD outbreak (2007), a major decline in deer population while liberal doe harvest limits are in place, experience much slower population rebound. In fact, I don't think TN's deer population has fully rebound from our outbreak 7 years ago (and I consider that a very good thing, as in places, our population was too high at the time of the outbreak). So for the Midwest, a big deer die-off in the midst of liberal doe harvest policies will, in my opinion, definitely experience a slow population rebound, and may actually never see a full rebound. Whether or not this is a good thing for the Midwest is another question, as their biologically carrying capacity is so astronomically high.
2) In the Southeast, Atlantic Coast states, and far North (forested regions of the northern tier of states), deer densities are lower because they needed to be. Back when I first started working in private land management, the #1 PROBLEM I witnessed across the Southeast and Atlantic Coast states was not poor sex ratios or poor buck age structure (although these problems DID exist). The #1 problem was deer overpopulation. I observed VAST areas of these regions displaying severe over-browsing of the habitat by deer. Thankfully, these regions' wildlife biologists and hunters "got the message" and both allowed and participated in more liberal doe harvests, with the expressed purpose of reducing deer densities. At that, they have been effective, for the good of the remaining deer population and the habitat (as well as all the other animal species that use the same habitat). Of course, now hunters will have to accept what goes along with a lower deer density produced through higher antlerless harvests: fewer deer which means sightings going down; and antlerless deer that have become as hunter-shy as bucks making them even less observable. Both of these lead to fewer deer seen and sometimes lower harvest success rates. It's a trade-off: fewer but healthier/larger deer that are harder to hunt and kill. However, I do not believe that any widespread areas of these regions have dangerously low deer populations. They simply have reduced populations that are more hunter-shy, which reduces hunter observations and harvests.
If hunter success rates are declining...and I am not convinced they are, it is due to trophy hunting or pass that one up and let him grow kind of hunting.
Through the Midwest, over the past two years, there has been a decline due to a massive EHD outbreak that did decrease deer numbers. However, in states with healthy deer populations, there is only one reason for a decline in success; the one I mentioned.
As for hunter recruitment and retention, yes, that is a problem. You can lay it right at the feet of fathers or lack thereof. In a single parent household, often, the father does not have adequate time or resources to "take a kid hunting". In dual parent households, often, it is the lack of desire on the part of the child and the parent, coupled with a plethora of other activities in which the child is interested.
Bottom line-more deer and land for me to hunt.
Now isn't that a selfish attitude? Truth is, after writing about this very same thing over a decade ago and trying to encourage more adult/youth activities, I, at my advanced age, have stopped worrying about it.
Through the Midwest, over the past two years, there has been a decline due to a massive EHD outbreak that did decrease deer numbers. However, in states with healthy deer populations, there is only one reason for a decline in success; the one I mentioned.
As for hunter recruitment and retention, yes, that is a problem. You can lay it right at the feet of fathers or lack thereof. In a single parent household, often, the father does not have adequate time or resources to "take a kid hunting". In dual parent households, often, it is the lack of desire on the part of the child and the parent, coupled with a plethora of other activities in which the child is interested.
Bottom line-more deer and land for me to hunt.
Now isn't that a selfish attitude? Truth is, after writing about this very same thing over a decade ago and trying to encourage more adult/youth activities, I, at my advanced age, have stopped worrying about it.
BHC
Well-Known Member
I tend to agree with the analysis of those on here, but disagree with the hunting population. I tend to believe there are more people hunting to than ever before.. I agree a much lower percentage of ppl hunt today than in the past, but I believe there are likely more deer hunters/ land managers than there ever has been..
BSK
Well-Known Member
BHC said:
Actual number of hunters had been on a steady decline since the 1980s. However, the last big survey done found a small uptick. But we do not have as many hunters now as we did 20-30 years ago.
deerhunter10
Well-Known Member
BHC said:
I disagree with the population to. I can tell just on opening day its down. Money is tight and let's face it hunting is not cheap any more. I know even 10 years ago there were more hunters then now. I think it is deciding because we are in the social media and television age. and it makes it seem like a ton of hunters. But I think there are for sure less now. Which being a trophy hunter its not hurting my feelings although I would like the see more kids involved I just don't see it happening. I know that is kind of selfish though. But it doesn't hurt my feelings either if there are a lot of hunters either. But I do think it is less then it was for sure.
BSK said:
i agree. but do we have less deer hunters. most of the decline that i have seen in print, seem to highlight a huge decline of small game hunters- not deer hunters. i bet more than half of of tndeer members only deer and turkey hunt.
I think a lot of us think more people hunt because there is less available land to hunt, therefore hunters are concentrated.
What is the harvest reporting methods for these states with a decline?
In WY you do not "check" your deer in, they randomly mail you a survey. Three of us went last fall and all killed bucks, none of us received a survey so therefore our 3 deer were never recorded. I think this is a major issue and poor management on the state agency. Its really not that hard or expensive (make the hunter pay for it) to have a mail in survey attached to your tag for states with one buck limits and those that require individual tags for bonus deer.
What is the harvest reporting methods for these states with a decline?
In WY you do not "check" your deer in, they randomly mail you a survey. Three of us went last fall and all killed bucks, none of us received a survey so therefore our 3 deer were never recorded. I think this is a major issue and poor management on the state agency. Its really not that hard or expensive (make the hunter pay for it) to have a mail in survey attached to your tag for states with one buck limits and those that require individual tags for bonus deer.
BSK
Well-Known Member
redblood said:
Yes, less deer hunters too (except for the last survey, which showed a slight uptick).
I think the perceived increase in deer hunters is driven, as someone earlier posted, by the loss of areas to hunt, forcing fewer deer hunters into even less land. In addition, I think the shift in emphasis towards hunting older deer has produced a perceived need for more acres per hunter. We hunters now feel "crowded" at hunter densities that would have been perfectly acceptable 20 years ago. Then throw in the growing trend towards deer hunting being seen as a competition between hunters rather than a competition with Nature.
I absolutely hate that competition between hunters is going on!!! It is one thing to have a friendly competition where no feelings are hurt, but to say things that disrespect the hunter, the animal, and our great sport is just wrong.
In Texas a lot of people are getting frustrated and throwing in the towel, so I would say hunter numbers are dwindling. Factors I've noticed:
1. Lease prices
2. Lack of available land
3. Unrealistic expectations resulting in dissatisfaction
All of these (IMO) are a direct result of obsession with trophy sized antlers. People are no longer satisfied with joining an inexpensive camp, lease, or hunting public ground and killing deer. Hunting shows and trophy hunters condition many to feel like a successful hunt has to be a mature animal with large antlers.
I REALLY hope I don't see TN going down that same path.
The one exception, and I think it just might potentially be a game changer, is the locavore/natural/back to basics group that is hunting for the opportunity to harvest fresh, natural meat as a food source.
1. Lease prices
2. Lack of available land
3. Unrealistic expectations resulting in dissatisfaction
All of these (IMO) are a direct result of obsession with trophy sized antlers. People are no longer satisfied with joining an inexpensive camp, lease, or hunting public ground and killing deer. Hunting shows and trophy hunters condition many to feel like a successful hunt has to be a mature animal with large antlers.
I REALLY hope I don't see TN going down that same path.
The one exception, and I think it just might potentially be a game changer, is the locavore/natural/back to basics group that is hunting for the opportunity to harvest fresh, natural meat as a food source.
BigGameGuy
Well-Known Member
Re: Deer population & hunter success in decline?
In my opinion I believe there's a much simpler answer. First off. in regards to hunter success. Easy...they are choosier and not pulling the trigger at the first deer they see.
In regards to declining deer numbers, I believe deer and turkey hunters need to realize, we don't and will not return anytime soon to the days of deer and turkey everywhere. What I mean is their "peak" numbers.
Here is a graph of how "restored" wildlife populations respond:
As you can see, there is a peak, followed by a decline, followed by settling out on K (carrying capacity). I believe deer and turkey numbers are now coming off their peaks and are seen in decline...that's NORMAL. Almost all of Tennessee's deer and turkey data shows this exact trend. We as a wildlife agency need to educate our hunters that the days of peak populations simply aren't sustainable.
In my opinion I believe there's a much simpler answer. First off. in regards to hunter success. Easy...they are choosier and not pulling the trigger at the first deer they see.
In regards to declining deer numbers, I believe deer and turkey hunters need to realize, we don't and will not return anytime soon to the days of deer and turkey everywhere. What I mean is their "peak" numbers.
Here is a graph of how "restored" wildlife populations respond:
As you can see, there is a peak, followed by a decline, followed by settling out on K (carrying capacity). I believe deer and turkey numbers are now coming off their peaks and are seen in decline...that's NORMAL. Almost all of Tennessee's deer and turkey data shows this exact trend. We as a wildlife agency need to educate our hunters that the days of peak populations simply aren't sustainable.
BigGameGuy
Well-Known Member
TX300mag said:
That is simply one of the best comments I have read. I believe you are spot on with all that you said (especially #3).
deerhunter10
Well-Known Member
TX300mag said:
spot on but it is already happening in Tennessee. is it as bad as other states no but we are already heading that direction.
BSK
Well-Known Member
Re: Deer population & hunter success in decline?
I do agree that we are seeing a larger number of deer hunters that are truly obsessed. They eat, breath, and sleep deer hunting 365. But I'm not sure they kill more deer. These hunters are highly selective about what they kill. Although I would say these hunters are far more successful at killing older bucks than hunters used to be, which is seen in the harvest data.
I think we still have plenty of these type of hunters--what I call "opening weekend" hunters; those that only deer hunting opening weekend of gun season, and then again around Thanksgiving. Perhaps BGG has more recent numbers, but the last time the TWRA did a survey asking how many days deer hunters hunted per year, the average was only around 12 days. And remember, that's averaging in all of the hardcore deer hunters that are hunting 40-60+ days per year, so there has to a be a ton of hunters only hunting 4 or less days a year to get an average around 12.
pass-thru said:
I do agree that we are seeing a larger number of deer hunters that are truly obsessed. They eat, breath, and sleep deer hunting 365. But I'm not sure they kill more deer. These hunters are highly selective about what they kill. Although I would say these hunters are far more successful at killing older bucks than hunters used to be, which is seen in the harvest data.
I think we still have plenty of these type of hunters--what I call "opening weekend" hunters; those that only deer hunting opening weekend of gun season, and then again around Thanksgiving. Perhaps BGG has more recent numbers, but the last time the TWRA did a survey asking how many days deer hunters hunted per year, the average was only around 12 days. And remember, that's averaging in all of the hardcore deer hunters that are hunting 40-60+ days per year, so there has to a be a ton of hunters only hunting 4 or less days a year to get an average around 12.
BSK
Well-Known Member
TX300mag said:
I agree with deerhunter10; it is happening in TN, just not quite as bad as in TX and some of the Midwestern states.
In my opinion, your 3rd point about "unrealistic expectations" is the real killer. I'm becoming appalled at the rhetoric I see presented on TV hunting shows and even from organizations such as the QDMA. Their ever-increasing standards of what qualifies as a "worthy" deer for harvest is FAR beyond what is realistic for 95% of deer hunters. In fact, if you listen to today's hunting media, anything less than a 5 1/2+ year-old buck is a "young" buck that should be protected. I can promise you that mathematically, if that were the criteria of hunting "success," success rates among hunters would be so low as to drive 95+% of them out of the hunting world forever.
Agreed. In fact, they may be the ones driving the sudden uptick in hunter numbers observed in the last hunting census.
It's sad, but I've seen people in Texas ostracized, made fun of, and looked down on for their FIRST deer being a 2.5 and even 3.5 year old buck.
I remember one instance in particular where a young hunter (13-14 years old) walked away during the early season and never came back. He watched his father being ridiculed and chastised for killing his first deer, which was an 8 point buck that didn't meet other hunters standard (no rule violated). Way to introduce two new hunters to the sport.
I remember one instance in particular where a young hunter (13-14 years old) walked away during the early season and never came back. He watched his father being ridiculed and chastised for killing his first deer, which was an 8 point buck that didn't meet other hunters standard (no rule violated). Way to introduce two new hunters to the sport.
stik
Well-Known Member
TX300mag said:It's sad, but I've seen people in Texas ostracized, made fun of, and looked down on for their FIRST deer being a 2.5 and even 3.5 year old buck.
I remember one instance in particular where a young hunter (13-14 years old) walked away during the early season and never came back. He watched his father being ridiculed and chastised for killing his first deer, which was an 8 point buck that didn't meet other hunters standard (no rule violated). Way to introduce two new hunters to the sport.
that happens here(tndeer) too. there are those amongst us who belittle others' deer if they don't meet their standards.
woodsman87
Well-Known Member
TV hunting has just about ruined it. Now if you don't kill a 150"er behind your house with a brand new Mathews you aren't cool enough to hunt.
Instead of TV hunters trying to teach people new to the sport how to hunt, they have just gone to making money and trying to sell their crap.
So many new hunters buy the deer calls, doe pee, and attractants, (like acorn rage and trophy rock) and expect instant success. When they hunt opening weekend and see nothing, or kill a yearling buck, they are ridiculed and discouraged and therefore quit.
In order to be like the TV people, you have to be lucky in the fact that you know some people with access to these great lands, or you have to be rich without a family in order to find a lease that has big bucks.
TV hunting is just dispicable. I remember when it was good entertainment as well as educational, but now it is all about the antlers and money.
Instead of TV hunters trying to teach people new to the sport how to hunt, they have just gone to making money and trying to sell their crap.
So many new hunters buy the deer calls, doe pee, and attractants, (like acorn rage and trophy rock) and expect instant success. When they hunt opening weekend and see nothing, or kill a yearling buck, they are ridiculed and discouraged and therefore quit.
In order to be like the TV people, you have to be lucky in the fact that you know some people with access to these great lands, or you have to be rich without a family in order to find a lease that has big bucks.
TV hunting is just dispicable. I remember when it was good entertainment as well as educational, but now it is all about the antlers and money.
woodsman87
Well-Known Member
I went through a trophy stage, where I wasn't going to shoot anything unless it was mountable, and It had to be big enough to impress my friends. I used to frown upon people for shooting yearlings. I am no longer like that. It makes me feel so much better now that I am mature as a sportsman, and if a hunter is happy with an animal he/she killed then congrats to them.
I hunt for myself now. If I feel like shooting a small 2-1/2 year old six point I shoot him. I do not post pictures of any animal I kill or fish I catch. I do not like to brag about anything that I shoot. It is a personal accomplishment to myself, so I keep it to myself.
I hunt for myself now. If I feel like shooting a small 2-1/2 year old six point I shoot him. I do not post pictures of any animal I kill or fish I catch. I do not like to brag about anything that I shoot. It is a personal accomplishment to myself, so I keep it to myself.
barkscraper
Well-Known Member
Your right woodsman87 I have only me to please and i choose to hunt the 3 1/2 yr old deer and up,not the rack as much anymore. I killed nothing last yr passing on 14 different bucks. I HATE the RACK IN A SACK seed and mineral companies the staged tv shows it has done more damage to our sport than anything else listed. We need to hunt to please our self so we as hunters need to start looking around to see what we are supporting
Throw EHD into the mix & you might find part of the reasons for some states wanting a lower deer density # ,they were trying to kill every deer in some states & county's in order to stop it. It can occur naturally so it wont ever be eradicated but the spread can be slowed down by limiting the population
BSK
Well-Known Member
mike243 said:
mike243,
EHD is not contagious. It does not spread from deer to deer. Deer density has no relation to outbreaks of EHD or those outbreaks' severity. The chance of an individual deer getting EHD is the same if the density is 5 or 50 deer per square mile.
TNGunsmoke
Well-Known Member
mike243 said:
I think you have EHD and CWD confused. CWD is the one that is speculated to be spread by too high a concentration of deer. I really wonder sometimes if they know exactly what causes it, I am just glad it has not yet been found here.
landman
Well-Known Member
TWRA showed a graph today that showed TN 3.5 yr old buck harvest has dropped the last 2-3 yrs we are now back to the same amount killed in 2008
landman
Well-Known Member
stik said:That's the truthTX300mag said:It's sad, but I've seen people in Texas ostracized, made fun of, and looked down on for their FIRST deer being a 2.5 and even 3.5 year old buck.
I remember one instance in particular where a young hunter (13-14 years old) walked away during the early season and never came back. He watched his father being ridiculed and chastised for killing his first deer, which was an 8 point buck that didn't meet other hunters standard (no rule violated). Way to introduce two new hunters to the sport.
that happens here(tndeer) too. there are those amongst us who belittle others' deer if they don't meet their standards.
