MO Deer Hunting at crossroads

[BSK]

I'm not sure I'm buying the scenario as presented by hunters. A major EHD die-off two years in a row? That's biologically questionable.

 

[Lawrence]

Not sure
I hunted east central Mo during the first 2 days of gun season and saw 5 does and 5 bucks and killed on the second evening. North Mo gets all the publicity and is where the big outfitters are and where most of the complaining is coming from. As for the liberal doe limits maybe hunters should have a little trigger control. JMO

 

[Boll Weevil]

As for the liberal doe limits maybe hunters should have a little trigger control.

Ask many GA hunters, and they'll admit they've probably been shooting themselves out of a huntable population in some areas for years. The limit is currently 10 does but that doesn't really matter when you only see 3 a year. I'm not sure hunters (as a whole) have the discipline to lay off the trigger and given liberal bag limits, will quit shooting when there's nothing else to shoot. MO might now be in the same boat (especially if you add depredation permits and a bout of EHD).

And oh by the way...those 3 went in the freezer.

 

[BSK]

I don't know Boll Weevil. We've had a 250+ per year doe limit in Unit L for quite a few years, and in the majority of situations, I see no sign hunters are shooting out the deer population.

 

[TheLBLman]

We've had a 250+ per year doe limit in Unit L for quite a few years, and in the majority of situations, I see no sign hunters are shooting out the deer population.

What I'm seeing is a big change in doe behavior. The does have become much more nocturnal, and much less likely to step out in a food plot during the day. This can give the "appearance" of a lot fewer deer, even though the deer density may be little changed.

Some of this behavior change is due to increased cover habitat that is also chock full of deer food, not just in my case, but "improving" habitat for wildlife has been a widespread and growing practice over the last few years. Kinda ironic that we do things to help the deer, then see fewer deer.

 

[BSK]

Even with a decent acorn crop, deer (both bucks and does) are in our plots AT NIGHT almost every calendar day. Yet hunters hunting those plots don't have any better sighting rate of deer as those hunting other locations. In fact, it may be worse. Shoot der out of plots and they will absolutely stop using them during daylight.

 

[J-WO]

Has it ever come into question for a state like TN to adopt the actual QDMA methods in their whitetail regulations? I'm curious to see what that would look like,as well as what hunter blowback would be. I know growing up in southern MS there was a greater than 4 points rule on bucks,and that was in a time when seeing more than a few deer a season was uncommon (even on dog drives). It seems their overall deer herd is much healthier now because of it.

 

[J-WO]

Maybe it was area specific,but I grew up about 30 mins south of Hattiesburg (George County) in the Mid 1990's (age 8-14). There were very little deer in that area, and poaching was a HUGE problem (I would be surprised if 10% of the deer killed were killed legally). I know that the population in that area has taken a huge turn. I should exchange the word "Health" with the word "Population" from my original post.

I was'nt really wondering if QDMA methods would work for MS, but for a state like TN. I'm not really proposing a change, I dont mind the way it is, just curious if a move in that direction would benifit overall buck age structure and size.

 

[Boll Weevil]

I don't know Boll Weevil. We've had a 250+ per year doe limit in Unit L for quite a few years, and in the majority of situations, I see no sign hunters are shooting out the deer population.

True enough.

I've considered though, whether our hunter density or access to property may be different enough than GA or MO when considering herd carrying capacity and liberal limits. GAs human population growth, demand for land, and expanding urban footprint has consumed lots of opportunity for hunters. This combined with sky high lease prices for example, has forced more hunters onto less land just to pay the lease. All the while, bag limits have increased. Folks are gonna get their money's worth, they shoot and shoot, and voila...a pocket of virtually deer less property is produced. Same applies with many connected, small properties where the landowners and their families hunt.

Just a thought.

 

[mrw]

I have hunted in Northern Missouri every year for the past 4 years during the first week of November. We saw just as many deer this year as usual, but we didn't see as many older age-class bucks this year. We saw lots of 1.5 - 2.5 yo's cruising and a few 3-5 yo's, but the older bucks were not as visible. A few were seen by the group and one was killed. I have never seen as many deer as we see in Missouri. It makes Unit L look like a barren desert! As BSK has said, hunters aren't very good at estimating deer populations.

 

[BSK]

Has it ever come into question for a state like TN to adopt the actual QDMA methods in their whitetail regulations? I'm curious to see what that would look like,as well as what hunter blowback would be. I know growing up in southern MS there was a greater than 4 points rule on bucks,and that was in a time when seeing more than a few deer a season was uncommon (even on dog drives). It seems their overall deer herd is much healthier now because of it.

J-WO,

Yes, regulations intended to protect young bucks from harvest have been discussed ad nauseam on this site and within the TWRA and TWRC, and have always produced the most ugly and vicious arguments imaginable.

Although I understand hunters interest in enacting hunting regulations that promote/enforce QDM principles, many problems occur when trying to develop such regulations. First and foremost, Quality Deer Management is a process designed as a VOLUNTARY management system. The term "voluntary" is even clearly stated in the definition of what QDM is. Although this seems like a minor "hurdle" towards developing regulations, it is actually a fairly critical part of how and why QDM works when implemented on individual properties. QDM works on private lands because the practitioners WANT to practice it, and are willing to educate themselves on deer management and deer hunting. In fact, I can make a very solid case for the theory that the success of local QDM efforts are far more the result of the voluntary self-education of the hunters versus the actual biological process of QDM. It is no surprise that hunter-implemented QDM programs are almost always far more successful than state-regulated QDM. For the process to work, you have to have hunters invested in the process who are willing to become more educated about deer. Simply FORCING hunters to fit their deer kills into a regulation, without the hunters wanting or understanding what is being attempted, will never produce the results voluntary QDM produces, even though the regulations often cover much, MUCH larger sections of land than hunter-implemented programs do.

The second big problem with developing regulations that enforce QDM principles is finding a way to protect young bucks. In voluntary, hunter-implemented QDM programs, hunters are taught how to identify young bucks from older bucks by body conformation (again, back to the self-education that makes QDM work). This isn't possible with state regulations. Hunting laws need definitions that are very precise, and there is nothing precise about body conformation. Most state-mandated QDM programs use antler size as their "precise" identifier of young bucks. However, that has some serious problems as well. There are no antler characteristics that are limited to young bucks. Some characteristics are more likely to be produced by young bucks, but no antler characteristic is limited to young bucks. And although many hunters would assume that as long as an antler restriction protects some young bucks, then that is good enough, in reality, protecting bucks by antler characteristics has some truly negative consequences in the long run. MS found that out after many years of poorly designed statewide antler restrictions (significantly reduced average antler size of mature bucks). In some locations--especially poor-quality habitat--antler restrictions actually do work fairly well, but in better quality habitat, no EASILY IDENTIFIABLE antler restrictions exist that will adequately protect young bucks while allowing the harvest of the vast majority of older bucks.

Lastly is the question of need. Does TN NEED such regulations? I would say "No." All indications are, TN's buck age structure is perfectly fine on a statewide level. Now that doesn't mean buck age structure is adequate everywhere in the state. Unquestionably there are pockets and even entire counties and groups of counties where the harvest of yearling bucks is too high. However, I for one am DEEPLY opposed to enacting highly restrictive regulations statewide that are not needed and could actually be detrimental to the hunting and deer herds in those parts of the state where conditions are good (and the TWRA's harvest data strongly suggests these "good" areas outnumber the "bad" areas). Most importantly, these "good" areas became good all through the voluntary actions of hunters over time. This is a slow process, but not that slow. These changes occurred over about a 10-year period. I realize to some this is an eternity, but from my perspective as a manager, I NEVER expected these changes would occur that fast or that dramatically. Personally, I would much rather see efforts towards improving the "bad" areas focused on hunter education and voluntary changes in hunter attitude and desire, rather than forced regulation that might produce unintended negative biological consequences as well as anger hunters.

 

[Lost Lake]

Has it ever come into question for a state like TN to adopt the actual QDMA methods in their whitetail regulations? I'm curious to see what that would look like,as well as what hunter blowback would be. I know growing up in southern MS there was a greater than 4 points rule on bucks,and that was in a time when seeing more than a few deer a season was uncommon (even on dog drives). It seems their overall deer herd is much healthier now because of it.

J-WO,

Yes, regulations intended to protect young bucks from harvest have been discussed ad nauseam on this site and within the TWRA and TWRC, and have always produced the most ugly and vicious arguments imaginable.

Although I understand hunters interest in enacting hunting regulations that promote/enforce QDM principles, many problems occur when trying to develop such regulations. First and foremost, Quality Deer Management is a process designed as a VOLUNTARY management system. The term "voluntary" is even clearly stated in the definition of what QDM is. Although this seems like a minor "hurdle" towards developing regulations, it is actually a fairly critical part of how and why QDM works when implemented on individual properties. QDM works on private lands because the practitioners WANT to practice it, and are willing to educate themselves on deer management and deer hunting. In fact, I can make a very solid case for the theory that the success of local QDM efforts are far more the result of the voluntary self-education of the hunters versus the actual biological process of QDM. It is no surprise that hunter-implemented QDM programs are almost always far more successful than state-regulated QDM. For the process to work, you have to have hunters invested in the process who are willing to become more educated about deer. Simply FORCING hunters to fit their deer kills into a regulation, without the hunters wanting or understanding what is being attempted, will never produce the results voluntary QDM produces, even though the regulations often cover much, MUCH larger sections of land than hunter-implemented programs do.

The second big problem with developing regulations that enforce QDM principles is finding a way to protect young bucks. In voluntary, hunter-implemented QDM programs, hunters are taught how to identify young bucks from older bucks by body conformation (again, back to the self-education that makes QDM work). This isn't possible with state regulations. Hunting laws need definitions that are very precise, and there is nothing precise about body conformation. Most state-mandated QDM programs use antler size as their "precise" identifier of young bucks. However, that has some serious problems as well. There are no antler characteristics that are limited to young bucks. Some characteristics are more likely to be produced by young bucks, but no antler characteristic is limited to young bucks. And although many hunters would assume that as long as an antler restriction protects some young bucks, then that is good enough, in reality, protecting bucks by antler characteristics has some truly negative consequences in the long run. MS found that out after many years of poorly designed statewide antler restrictions (significantly reduced average antler size of mature bucks). In some locations--especially poor-quality habitat--antler restrictions actually do work fairly well, but in better quality habitat, no EASILY IDENTIFIABLE antler restrictions exist that will adequately protect young bucks while allowing the harvest of the vast majority of older bucks.

Lastly is the question of need. Does TN NEED such regulations? I would say "No." All indications are, TN's buck age structure is perfectly fine on a statewide level. Now that doesn't mean buck age structure is adequate everywhere in the state. Unquestionably there are pockets and even entire counties and groups of counties where the harvest of yearling bucks is too high. However, I for one am DEEPLY opposed to enacting highly restrictive regulations statewide that are not needed and could actually be detrimental to the hunting and deer herds in those parts of the state where conditions are good (and the TWRA's harvest data strongly suggests these "good" areas outnumber the "bad" areas). Most importantly, these "good" areas became good all through the voluntary actions of hunters over time. This is a slow process, but not that slow. These changes occurred over about a 10-year period. I realize to some this is an eternity, but from my perspective as a manager, I NEVER expected these changes would occur that fast or that dramatically. Personally, I would much rather see efforts towards improving the "bad" areas focused on hunter education and voluntary changes in hunter attitude and desire, rather than forced regulation that might produce unintended negative biological consequences as well as anger hunters.

Excellent post.

 

[J-WO]

J-WO,

Yes, regulations intended to protect young bucks from harvest have been discussed ad nauseam on this site and within the TWRA and TWRC, and have always produced the most ugly and vicious arguments imaginable.

Although I understand hunters interest in enacting hunting regulations that promote/enforce QDM principles, many problems occur when trying to develop such regulations. First and foremost, Quality Deer Management is a process designed as a VOLUNTARY management system. The term "voluntary" is even clearly stated in the definition of what QDM is. Although this seems like a minor "hurdle" towards developing regulations, it is actually a fairly critical part of how and why QDM works when implemented on individual properties. QDM works on private lands because the practitioners WANT to practice it, and are willing to educate themselves on deer management and deer hunting. In fact, I can make a very solid case for the theory that the success of local QDM efforts are far more the result of the voluntary self-education of the hunters versus the actual biological process of QDM. It is no surprise that hunter-implemented QDM programs are almost always far more successful than state-regulated QDM. For the process to work, you have to have hunters invested in the process who are willing to become more educated about deer. Simply FORCING hunters to fit their deer kills into a regulation, without the hunters wanting or understanding what is being attempted, will never produce the results voluntary QDM produces, even though the regulations often cover much, MUCH larger sections of land than hunter-implemented programs do.

The second big problem with developing regulations that enforce QDM principles is finding a way to protect young bucks. In voluntary, hunter-implemented QDM programs, hunters are taught how to identify young bucks from older bucks by body conformation (again, back to the self-education that makes QDM work). This isn't possible with state regulations. Hunting laws need definitions that are very precise, and there is nothing precise about body conformation. Most state-mandated QDM programs use antler size as their "precise" identifier of young bucks. However, that has some serious problems as well. There are no antler characteristics that are limited to young bucks. Some characteristics are more likely to be produced by young bucks, but no antler characteristic is limited to young bucks. And although many hunters would assume that as long as an antler restriction protects some young bucks, then that is good enough, in reality, protecting bucks by antler characteristics has some truly negative consequences in the long run. MS found that out after many years of poorly designed statewide antler restrictions (significantly reduced average antler size of mature bucks). In some locations--especially poor-quality habitat--antler restrictions actually do work fairly well, but in better quality habitat, no EASILY IDENTIFIABLE antler restrictions exist that will adequately protect young bucks while allowing the harvest of the vast majority of older bucks.

Lastly is the question of need. Does TN NEED such regulations? I would say "No." All indications are, TN's buck age structure is perfectly fine on a statewide level. Now that doesn't mean buck age structure is adequate everywhere in the state. Unquestionably there are pockets and even entire counties and groups of counties where the harvest of yearling bucks is too high. However, I for one am DEEPLY opposed to enacting highly restrictive regulations statewide that are not needed and could actually be detrimental to the hunting and deer herds in those parts of the state where conditions are good (and the TWRA's harvest data strongly suggests these "good" areas outnumber the "bad" areas). Most importantly, these "good" areas became good all through the voluntary actions of hunters over time. This is a slow process, but not that slow. These changes occurred over about a 10-year period. I realize to some this is an eternity, but from my perspective as a manager, I NEVER expected these changes would occur that fast or that dramatically. Personally, I would much rather see efforts towards improving the "bad" areas focused on hunter education and voluntary changes in hunter attitude and desire, rather than forced regulation that might produce unintended negative biological consequences as well as anger hunters.

Well put,great post.

 

[Winchester]

Agreed!

 

[Boll Weevil]

An article posted by Bill Winke...sent to me by a hunting buddy from MO. Although it's from an Iowa hunter's perspective, there's some concern that's also happening in other states.

 

[Winchester]

An article posted by Bill Winke...sent to me by a hunting buddy from MO. Although it's from an Iowa hunter's perspective, there's some concern that's also happening in other states.

For Iowa I will agree with this based on what I know and reports from friends that also own(ed) land there. Ill is right on Iowa's heels in terms of the same thing happening imo. Once a state realizes the money to be made on deer hunting, and politics get involved, its a recipe for disaster. Ill is a good example where just a dozen or so years ago things were peaked and the cat got out of the bag. Not only did Outfitters begin to pop up everywhere but they were overrun with hundreds of clients every season. Land/lease prices started going through the roof and then BAM the Politics get involved. Non res tags which had to actually be drawn with the limited # available, were raised to #'s so high they haven't been completely filled in MANY years now, anybody with $500 can come bowhunt the rut now! The hunting there, especially for big bucks, isn't what it once was and $ has everything to do with it!!!!

 

[muddyboots]

Bill and I seem to think alot alike. I know 2 guys that own small parcels of land. 50 acres on 1 and 25 on the other. They are selling it because since unit L started there hunting has basically shut down. They used to both kill one or 2 mature bucks a year and the last few years they are lucky to see a deer. Just my opinion and i know there are probably other factors involved but these properties are not located near each other and basically mirror each other.

 

[TheLBLman]

From Bill's article . . . . .

[size]As hunters increasingly targeted "trophy" deer, they were putting a lot of pressure on those high genetic quality 3 year olds to the point that few survived. That is another reason why the number of truly giant bucks in the population has dropped.[/size]

Substitute "3 year olds" with "2 year olds" and we've stated something happening widespread in Tennessee.

Perhaps this is only a "negative" if one would want to see more truly giant bucks in the population. Obviously, the hunters must surely consider an above average 2 1/2-yr-old buck a "trophy" buck, or they otherwise wouldn't shoot it?