Years of liberal regulations aren't enough I guess. Harvests are declining
https://deerassociation.com/national-doe-harvest/
https://deerassociation.com/national-doe-harvest/
National Deer Association says states gotta kill more does
- Thread starter Doskil
- Start date
MidTennFisher
Well-Known Member
With 3 does per day allowed in most of the state, why is Tennessee not killing enough does? I wonder if it being sexier on social media to show dead bucks than dead does is having an effect on this.
Not in my area. I'm not sure any doe needs killed here.
themanpcl
Well-Known Member
It's so subjective. Some areas do have too many and in other areas people say they don't have enough. I say every year that I'm gonna stick a few during bow season but when I'm given the opportunity, I'm always waiting for "the buck" to step out so I don't...lol... I do try at the end of the season to take at least one and glad they have the "doe week" so I'm not waiting on the buck...lol
What map are you looking at?
I few years back the doe kill numbers went down because they changed the button buck regulations. People didn't want to take a chance killing a button that was under 3 inches length because it counted as a buck tag. Glad they changed it back to 3 inches to be counted as a antlered buck.
I'd bet this is a big part of it in certain areas.
MidTennFisher
Well-Known Member
The one here that shows what appears to be a little over 50% of the state allowing 3 does per day.
https://www.tn.gov/twra/hunting/big-game/deer.html
useyourbow
Well-Known Member
Lack of opportunity and access. Never seen an over populated WMA.
m_allison71
Well-Known Member
You need to get out more.
m_allison71
Well-Known Member
People always waiting for the antlers. Conservation is about what's good for the herd, not the hunter. Shoot the does.
Biggun4214
Well-Known Member
Don't know about others but at one time Chuck Swann was over populated. Over 1000 deer/ year on about 20k acres. It wasn't unusual to kill a 3 1/2 or 4 1/2 year old doe that would dress less than 50 lbs.
EHD in 2007 dropped those numbers so low they wont ever come back up near that , coarse they changed it from a bonus buck. reckon I need to hunt it before I'm done.
I reckon fuzzy math rounds up
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2001
- Messages
- 3,759
- City & State/Province
- Pamelot, TN, Ghost Ranch, MT, Palmilla, Los Cabos
I have asked friends who shoot antlerless deer on my property to hold off until they actually can identify fawns with does and then kill the does.
We have had far too many big buck fawns killed by VERY knowledgeable, EXPERIENCED hunters. Not blaming them. Mistakes are made.
No need for any more mistakes.
We have had far too many big buck fawns killed by VERY knowledgeable, EXPERIENCED hunters. Not blaming them. Mistakes are made.
No need for any more mistakes.
UCStandSitter
Well-Known Member
I'm doin my part. They eat better!
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 13,575
ehd took care of what the state wouldnt. No need to worry though theyve sure made a fine mess out of it now!!
Blockhouse
Well-Known Member
North Cumberland feels like one doe per 50 square miles. Drive west on 40 and there is a dead one every couple of miles at times it seems. All about habitat and I do think the gentlemen farmers and food plots help the herd get larger. I don't see a doe over population issue except in isolated pockets.
themanpcl
Well-Known Member
Preach! My 4th or 5th year with this lease. Seen doe pop rise every year. Seems none of the rednecks around me shoot does...lol...even though I'm sure they have them at their corn piles every day...
BSK
Well-Known Member
In my personal/professional opinion, making large-scale recommendations (even condemnations of hunters as this article does) based SOLEY on harvest data is VERY bad policy and science. Harvests recommendations should be made from assessment of local conditions. I'm not saying the article is completely wrong. Maybe some areas do need more does harvested. But making that assumption/demand based only off harvest numbers is a mistake.
In fact, the article states this, which I agree with:
"Not every deer hunter needs to harvest does. It's a site-specific determination. Where deer herds are below the carrying capacity of the habitat, doe harvest should be minimized or avoided."
Sound advice. But the next sentence is ludicrous to the extreme:
"Nationally, very few deer hunters face that situation."
Really? "Few" hunters face the situation of deer herds below carrying capacity? Based on what data? Back in the late 90s and early 2000s, I saw widespread deer herds at and above carrying capacity all across the Southeast. I know exactly what that looks like because I documented and studied these herds in great detail. Now, I do not see overpopulated herds except in pockets. To unequivocally state "few hunters" face herds below carrying capacity is not only false on its face, but undeniably an uneducated statement made without any site-specific data.
In fact, the article states this, which I agree with:
"Not every deer hunter needs to harvest does. It's a site-specific determination. Where deer herds are below the carrying capacity of the habitat, doe harvest should be minimized or avoided."
Sound advice. But the next sentence is ludicrous to the extreme:
"Nationally, very few deer hunters face that situation."
Really? "Few" hunters face the situation of deer herds below carrying capacity? Based on what data? Back in the late 90s and early 2000s, I saw widespread deer herds at and above carrying capacity all across the Southeast. I know exactly what that looks like because I documented and studied these herds in great detail. Now, I do not see overpopulated herds except in pockets. To unequivocally state "few hunters" face herds below carrying capacity is not only false on its face, but undeniably an uneducated statement made without any site-specific data.
WestTn Huntin man
Well-Known Member
During the Depression years many herds were pretty much wiped out. I think the mindset of saving does to restore the herd carried over during those years.Generations of Hunters taught not to shoot Does to build the herds.
killingtime 41
Well-Known Member
I've hunted the same public spots for years. Problem I see is that if you just started hunting these places you'd think it had plenty of doe's. The real problem is it's the same doe groups. They just cover lots of acreage daily. And I bet that go's on more than we think it does. It wouldn't take long to decimate a herd.
deerhunter10
Well-Known Member
What a broad statement. Even in unit L with properties in 2 counties the deer density on different places is amazing. We have one farm we haven't shot a doe on in 4 year because we just don't have enough to justify it.
Last edited:
Swampster
Well-Known Member
Where I grew up in the 60s and 70s, hunters "taught" nothing about deer hunting. There weren't any or at least not enough to hunt. I grew up in a farming area. There were square miles of farmland, woods and river bottoms around me, and I was outside all the time. I don't remember even seeing a deer track growing up... or turkey or coyote.
fairchaser
Well-Known Member
Where CWD is present, you will see a reluctance to shoot does. Does are mostly for eating and with the possibility or likelihood of a doe being positive, the desire to kill one goes down. This is especially true when deer populations are being negatively impacted by CWD. Where I hunt, I may never kill another doe.
Flintlocksforme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2019
- Messages
- 323
I process my own but the costs and availability of processing has got to have something to do with the harvest drop. A lot of people in Benton Co were not able to take deer across the river to Humphreys Co last year due to CWD restrictions. Our harvest numbers were down too I believe
