Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

It's Our Responsibility - At Least for Now

I would like to see a doe tag come with the any-sex tag. Then the $11 for each additional doe tag. I don't mind paying the extra $26, but I have heard a lot of folks say that the extra cost keeps them from getting a doe tag. Bottom line is people have to shoot more does. Giving the first doe tag with the any-sex tag may get more folks involved that otherwise wouldn't have spent the extra money. We all need to do what we can to help. We need to utilize the HUSH program. We as hunters need to show how we help the economy and help put food on OTHER peoples tables through HUSH. We need to show and talk about all the ways we help manage and protect wildlife, not just about the big buck we shot. I know I am preaching to the choir here because the majority of people on this site know the importance of managing the deer herd. We need to inform and teach other hunters that are not as knowledgeable about the importance of harvesting does. Some people, for whatever reason, can't see the big picture. Just my $.02.
 
It's the Media that controls public opinion, that determines the number of deer the public is willing to tolerate.
Powerful forces are at work to reduce the herd and the motive is not QDM, deer management or hunting opprotunities.
We must do everything we can to keep hunting the #1 method of regulating the size of the herd.
We also need to fight against those with false motives. The ones who sway public opinion into viewing the deer as villians and reduce there value to nothing. Very soon the public opinion will turn sour and deer will be varmints to get rid of.
We need to promote acceptance of a large deer herd. We are an arrogant society so when deer rub us wrong, like anthing else we smack it into it's place.
Tolerance is the answer, but we'll have none of that because greed wins the day.
Many deer loose many dollars.
Fewer deer meen more dollars.
Follow the money, see who profits?
They can't see past thier billfolds and could care less about any deer or hunter.

I've done alot of driving, never hit a deer. I don't see the number of deer others must. I just drove 6 hours on Hwy 30 dawn and dusk, I saw three deer in the morning and three in the evening in the exact same spot.(same deer?)
I don't understand hunters wanting fewer deer under the conditions I see in my area.
 
I'm with scout on this one. Although I have done as much as I could for management without waste in the past few years I have yet to see any surplus in numbers in the area's I hunt. If anything I would have to say my numbers are down. The only increase in numbers that I see is the number of houses that continue to be built in timbered areas and push anything wildlife oriented into a limited number of acres to survive. Mothernature doesn't operate under the conditions of roadrage, thankfully. The only increase of deer related accidents I see is in the urban areas where we have forced wildlife out of their natural habitat areas and have forced them to use alternate routes for their survival.

A few years ago, I was the "successful bidder" for a county for two years and won the contract for removal of secondary roadkill. No records were even kept prior to my taking of the job. It had been "estimated" for the number of reported incidents, but never documented. In the first year that I completed my contract, I recorded the location of pickup, the date, and the sex. Unfortunately the total number of pickup was nearly double than the "estimated" number given by the county and the bid was not a profit making situation. I adjusted my bid a little the following year and was still the "successful bidder". I still recorded every pickup and at the end of the year was very consistent with the numbers of the previous year. I contacted the county and told them their "estimated Number" should be raised due to the tally recorded from the last two years. Well, when the bid sheet was released again it still had the "estimated number" around 100 incidents again. Knowing that this number was nearly double and how I still really wasn't making profit off my last numbers I readjusted my bid to make this work. Unfortunalety the "winning bidder" went off of the "estimated number" and put in a bid that was considerably lower than mine, and in result received the contract. I was starting to compile a decent study for myself but unfortunaletly fell a few years short to feel that it was complete. But, during the two years I did come to the conclusion that most of the deer related accidents were in the areas where "fresh" housing developments on the edge of big cities had forced the wildlife to find an alternate course to their food source or bedding areas. The total amount of pickups in the rural areas was less, even with mushrooming and shotgunners stirring up the timbers and pushing deer around than the total from the year with the urban areas.

So, when they do their counts per square mile do they take into account the "loss of natural habitat from urban sprawl" thus forcing more animals into a smaller area? Do you ever see any numbers referring to the acres of natural habitat lost for wildlife in urban areas?
 
Tracker- I'll try to find the reference, I don't have it right here but there was a study- I think in PA that showed no relationship between hunting pressure and road kill. More likely association was found with rutting activity was their conclusion. I always thought they must be right as I could never figure out how some of these really nice mature bucks survive hunting pressure for 4-5 years and then walk out in front of a truck.
 
Tracker,

Fascinating information! I find it interesting that the county prefers to keep using old numbers in spite of new information when soliciting bids. I wish you could have kept records for longer. Looks like you might have been able to support some interesting ideas.

Old Buck
 
PLEASE READ!!!! it's always been our responsibility and always will be. NO , the answer is not more tags, and NO the answer is not the "earn a buck" program for the eploding deer herds. The problem is too many hunters not filling their tags!!! i'll bet you any amount of money, that if you go back and look at how many liscense(res. and non-res) was sold last year, then look at the deer kill totals, then total up How many deer could have been killed per liscence sold, and i'll bet you that you find out that less than 12%-15% of all the people who bought liscense last year filled all of their tags. and i'll bet you that less than 25%-30% of hunters who bought liscense last year filled just 2 tags. let me explain!

i'll use our tag regulations here in ohio for my explanation on this issue. here in ohio we are allowed 1 either-sex tag and 2 doe tags. i personally feel that this is perfect, and our deer population is catching up with the likes of PA, every year! i do everything i can to fill my tags every year, and i can set here and tell you several others who do so as well. BUT her is the kicker, i can name you 20 times as many people or more who don't fill all their tags. why? because most are after one thing, which is the same thing we're all after, a big buck. now if those hunters luck out and get that big buck, seasons over for them, why? because they can't eat anymore than one deer a year and who wants to pay $45 dollars 2 more times just to have the deer given to "hunters for the hungry". now don't get me wrong i think that is a great program, but if i only ate one deer a year, i sure as heck ain't gonna pay $90 to get my meat processed and sent somewhere else, oh, i might do it for a couple years but no more than that! i do understand that some hunters don't have the time to fill all thier tags, but there are a lot more who do have the time but wish not too, in hopes of getting that big buck, although i too know a lot that if they don't succeed on that big buck they will take a doe in ML season, but that's only one doe!

so take into consideration what i have said, and think about how many hunters that you know or know of that don't fill their tags, and then think about how many hunter A knows that don't fill more than one tag and how many Hunter B knows that don't fill more then one tag.

scout couldn't have put it any better then in his post that it is important that we keep hunting as the #1 herd control, or something to that extent!!!


the "earn a buck" program makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, those of you who supprt it the only thing i can say to you (not being offensive in any way) is, "if you think there is already enough or too many deer being take unethically, wait 'til they start this program".

and there is no need for more tags. sure if WE were allowed more tags, WE would kill more deer so that we were doing our part, but how many guys do you know that are gonna go out here for say 3 years in a row and kill 8-9 deer? i would also bet that you can name more people who wouldn't than the people who would! as i stated earlier on the tag statistics, say that the numbers were increased a little and the number of hunters filling atleast 2 tags, which means atleast one doe per 2 kills, was raised to 40%, maybe even 50%, of the liscense sold. that is a lot of extra does being killed that have been needing killed. just look at the amount of deer that would be taken if those were the statistics, you would notice dramatic changes immedietly.

so the answer is within us guys, we can curb this issue, and most of us are doing are part but we must do what we can to make other hunters realize the importance of filling those tags.

Pete
 
I think the reality in Iowa is the number and method to collect the data of deer killed is poor at best.
When I was in law enforcement I investigated many car deer accidents. I came to conclusion many go unreported.
I have also come to the conclusion a much larger munber of deer killed by hunters than are tagged by hunters.
We have a world class hunting opprotunity at our door step. I'm a little shocked when hunters are so quick to jump the fence and side with those who's goal it is to persuade the public into believing deer numbers are out of control and hunters can't kill them fast enough.
Your insurance premium is'nt high because of car-deer accidents. It's high because your agent wants a 45' boat, two feet longer than his neighbor!
If deer were eliminated from Iowa would your permium go down? No, just bigger boat on the river and bigger houses in that urban sprawl.
Put down the cell phone,wake up and understand you are driving through deer country. You might see one so be alert.

We are now to the point people shoot deer with no intention to collect them.
Why? The fools think they are getting rid of a problem.
 
I think we're seeing more deer because Iowa has experienced relatively mild winters for the past few seasons, coupled with record harvests this year... I don't think the booming deer population is an epidemic, at least not yet. However, it may seem that way to the family that just bought that new "Sears" home in the new development on the edge of town (right next to the timber), when they see 20-30 deer every morning eating their newly planted trees, shrubbery and garden
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
soooo, if a 170 class buck walked within bow range of your stand on opening day, and you hadn't yet "earned your buck", would you then let the monster pass???

[/ QUOTE ]

I went to a MDC meeting last year when they were discussing several different options on an improved QDM program here in Missouri. One option was Earn a Buck. Talk about an instant panic. You would have thought that they just announced an Ebola outbreak.

My question was if we did an Earn-A-Buck, would it be possible to make it retroactive? The doe we harvest this year would earn your buck for next year. That would reduce the hazard you pointed out of the monster walking by and you hadn't harvested a doe yet.

But how are you going to do it without a check in station?
confused.gif


Missouri is moving towards no check stations in the future as well. I think it would be difficult to control even using the call in method they have proposed. I think there would be some unwilling hunters here that would call in and report a doe harvest even if they hadn't taken one to insure they had a buck tag. After all, it's only a $7.00 tag for an antlerless tag here.
 
The only problem there is with the earn a buck program is that alot of hunters are not out there soley for the meat. How about the people who don't need 2-3 deer in the freezer? Should they be made to shoot does and then have to transport the deer to a locker that accepts HUSH deer or something of the sort. How about the state of Iowa just changes some of the prices, lowering the tags from $26 to $10. Or how about if you buy a any-sex tag you get a free doe only tag along with it. Another would be if a county has a abundance of antlerless tags left at the end of the season then maybe they could be given away or close to nothing. If it's that much of a problem than we need to think about other options than making someone shoot something that they wouldn't shoot in the first place. Just my 2 cents.
 
Good discussion guys. I respectfully disagree with several posts, however, even those I disagree with have made some valid arguments.

Keep in mind that the article addressed the ecological effects of our huge herds - not just the social effects. I'm not sure many understand that yet or they choose to ignore it. When I get time, I will try to post the article, because I don't believe many have read it yet.

Scout, nobody is "jumping the fence" here. They recognize the dilema and are looking for solutions. I try to stay aware of public opinion and it does not matter where that opinion came from or how it was influenced - that is what it is. If we have the opportunity to change it, then we should use every means possible to do so.

I believe our best opportunity to influence public opinion regarding deer herds and deer hunting is to harvest more does AND to develop a reporting system that accurately reflects harvest figures so we can put together a deer population model that makes sense.
 
DC,

I'd love to read that article. I hope you or someone else gets time to post it.

I know of some forests that are in bad shape partly because of too many deer. Part of the problem is that the changes happen slowly and are hard to notice. Also many people don't have a good point of reference as to what a health forest looks like.

Old Buck
 
You are on the same track as much of the article. As much as I hate to copy things without permission, I will take the extra time tonight to type up the article so I can post it here, as I feel it is vitally important for every hunters understanding. (Hope I don't get sued for plagiarism!) I will also post the credits to the Wall Street Journal.
 
After a grueling typing session, here is the article in its entirety.

The Wall Street Journal Wednesday, December 1, 2004
Landscape Architects: Deer are Designing Future Look of Forests
Abundant Whitetails Munch Through Underbrush; Like the Serengeti Plain
By James P. Sterba

Millerton, N.Y. The deer rose out of a distant swamp before dawn to browse in a hay field on a recent day. Then, as the sun came up, they made their way into a hillside forest, looking for concealment.

But the forest offered few hiding places. It has lots of tall, mature conifers and hardwoods, some 100 years old. Under them, virtually nothing grows no seedlings, no saplings, no bushes, and only a few ferns. The floor of this forest, like others around the country, has been stripped clean by whitetail deer.

Its deer-hunting season across the land a time when Americans are reminded that bountiful whitetails have their costs. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said earlier this month that animal-vehicle crashes, mostly involving deer, killed more than 200 people last year and caused an estimated $1 billion-plus in property damage. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says deer cause more than $400 million in yearly crop damage, not including home gardens and ornamental shrubbery.

But below the radar of most people, whitetails are eating their way toward a more lasting legacy: They are wreaking havoc in forests across the nation. They have become de facto forest managers, determining today what many forests will look like 100 years from now, say forest experts.

Deer have stopped the regeneration of our forests in many areas, says Peter Pinchot, a Yale-educated director of the 1,400-acre Milford Experimental Forest on the Poconos Plateau in Pennsylvania. That means little trees arent growing up to eventually replace big trees.

Example: oaks. Deer love acorns. Surviving acorns sprout seedlings. Deer love them, too. Surviving seedlings become saplings. Deer strip them of their leaves and bark. They die. Result: no young oaks. Deer also love hickory and white ash, and eschew black birch, American beech and black locust. If they get hungry enough they will eat almost anything, and their victims arent just trees.

The ground-level vegetation of the forest has been severely degraded by over-browsing in many regions, eradicating critical habitat for many plants and birds, Mr. Pinchot says.

Gary Alt, Pennsylvanias chief deer biologist, says that allowing deer to multiply beyond the point where forests can replenish themselves, has been the biggest mistake in the history of wildlife management. He calls it malpractice.

Ironically, it was Mr. Pinchots grandfather, Gifford Pinchot, who helped bring back whitetail deer a century ago. As the first director of the U.S. Forest Service, he helped pioneer a conservation movement to save forests and restore species of birds and animals all but wiped out by commercial hunters. When he took over the job in 1898, the whitetail population was no more than 500,000 nationwide.

Pennsylvania had fewer than 600 deer. Restocking began in 1906 with deer brought in by rail from Wisconsin, Michigan, and West Virginia. With hunting restrictions, the herd grew back quickly. By 1917, Pennsylvania was the too-many-deer poster boy. Hunters loved it. Foresters hated it. Today, Pennsylvania has an estimated 1.6 million whitetails.

If Gifford Pinchot could see what deer have done to our forests, hed roll over in his grave, says Bryon P. Shissler, a wildlife bioligist in Pennsylvania who consults on deer issues.

Nationally, the whitetail population estimates range from 20 million to 33 million - more than when Columbus arrived five centuries ago, wildlife historians believe. Thats way to many deer to allow forests to regain their health and diversity, say Peter Pinchot.

You walk through the woods of central Wisconsin, where I live, look at the understory and theres nothing there, says Robert Wegner, a historian who has written a dozen books on deer and deer-hunting.

Not only is the deer population out of control, the management model of control is broken, he says. Deer density is increasing. Hunter density is decreasing. Hunters are aging were losing 75,000 a year. Mentors [to recruit young hunters] are going. Were pretty much headed for a train wreck.

Animal rights groups such as the Washington, D.C.-based Fund for Animals applaud huntings decline. That group wants hunting outlawed, and advocates non-lethal methods, such as birth control, to decrease deer overpopulations. But birth control, so far, doesnt really work, say most wildlife managers.

A general rule of thumb among deer biologists is that hunters need to kill 35% to 45% of females annually to stabilize the population. But in most places, they arent even killing even half that percentage, according to state tallies.

Whos to blame for the whitetail boom? Hunters, mainly. But, increasingly, non-hunters and anti-hunters are sharing the blame.

For decades, says Mr. Alt, the Pennsylvania biologist, vocal hunters have pressured state wildlife managers to maximize deer populations. Many still do. State wildlife agencies, which collect income from the sale of hunting licenses, obliged by restricting hunting season lengths and the number of deer a hunter could kill.

By the 1930s, most states had adopted rules banning the killing of does. Bucks are serial breeders, so more females mean more fawns and a bigger herd. These so called buck laws became a part of the deer-hunter creed.

Now states are pushing doe killing to create smaller, healthier herds, but many older hunters are loath to kill females. When Pennsylvania put more than a million doe permits up for sale this year, one group of hunters, the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania, launched a Stop the Slaughter boycott. Doe killing, they argue, is causing deer shortages - a notion the state disputes.

In recent years, states have lengthened seasons, increased the number of deer a hunter can kill and make it easier to get nuisance permits, which allow farmers to kill deer causing damage anytime. Southern South Carolinas lengthened season, for example, opens August 15 and closes January 1. Hunters can kill as many bucks as they want, and doe permits are easy to get. Still, by most accounts, the states whitetail population is growing.

Several states make hunters earn a buck meaning they have to kill a doe before they are able to kill a buck. And they can essentially buy as many deer killing-permits as they want. But most hunters hunt for meat, says Mr. Wegner, and once the freezers full, their incentive wanes. Selling wild game is illegal. Programs in which hunters donate deer for food pantries for the needy have expanded, but not enough, he says.

Many of those who live in the forested sprawl tend to be relative newcomers to the countryside, second or third generation suburbanites who now own hobby farms, weekend homes, or houses in developments in once rural areas. Some believe hunting is unsafe or inhumane, and post No Hunting signs on their property or push local governments to adopt anti-hunting regulations. This turns large patches of the landscape into deer sanctuaries. Deer love exurbs, where forest meets garden, with no predators and delicious ornamental shrubbery.

They know where the safety zone is, says Mr. Pinchot. Some studies show that in deep forest, coyotes and bears kill half the fawns, he says. But man has long been the deers chief predator. With exurban sprawl, a big threat now is likely to be the family SUV.

Depending on the landscape, deer densities of 10 to 15 per square mile can harm wildflowers and nesting birds, according to Audubon Pennsylvania, a conservation group. Tree regeneration may be possible at densities of 18 to 20 per square mile, it says. But in many parts of Pennsylvania, and across the nation, whitetail densities can exceed 70 per square mile.

Concerned about bird species being threatened because deer are eating their habitat, an Audubon center in Greenwich, Conn., invited in bow hunters last year. Worried about its forest damage, Illinois has opened 10 of its 319 nature preserves to deer hunting.

For 50 years, until 1991, the forest around Quabbin Reservoir in western Massachusetts was a 58,000-acre sanctuary: no hunting. Deer populations grew to 70 per square mile. Nothing much grew below the trees.

It looked like the Serengeti Plain, with herds of deer running around like antelope, says David Kittredge, a forester at the University of Massachusetts. The forest ecology around the reservoir was so degraded that the drinking water of 2.5 million residents was deemed to be at risk.

Hunters killed 575 deer around the reservoir in the initial 1991 hunt, and annual hunts since have brought the deer herd down to 10 to 12 per square mile. The forest understory made a comeback. Deer still eat some seedlings but not enough to thwart regeneration. Quabbin became a deer-management model adopted by many nature preserves.

Michael S. Scheibel, natural-resources manager at the 2,039-acre Mashomack Preserve, on Shelter Island in New York, is trying to protect one of the last oak-hickory and oak-beech forests on the Atlantic coast from deer. The preserve has been owned by the Nature Conservancy since 1980. Each January, hunters kill 100 to 150 whitetails. But after 5 years, hes seeing very little, if any forest regeneration.

One problem is that deer swim freely to Shelter Island from nearby Long Island, a giant suburb full of lush habitat, and anti-hunting zones. North Haven, an exclusive village on Long Island, declared a deer emergency in 1997, and since then residents have put up enough eight-foot-high wire-mesh fences to make some neighborhoods look like prison camps.

Mr. Scheibel, who manages the Mashomack Preserve, is thinking about other options: applying for nuisance permits to cull more deer, for starters. I really feel that with traditional hunting were not able to control the herd, he says.

Increasingly, professional hunting teams are hired to kill deer at taxpayer expense. This usually happens after battles between local factions for and against killing deer. Market hunting is still taboo, but we talk about it, says Mr. Shissler, the wildlife biologist and consultant. Market hunting allowing commercial deer-killing and the sale of wild venison has been outlawed since early in the last century.
 
DC- your typos not the WSJ?
smile.gif

Anyway- thank you for posting this article for all. Have been reading about all the party hunting, crippled bucks, excesses in taking young bucks over the last couple days and really think that an "earn a buck" program could solve many of the problems stated above. Even if only the gun season opening weekend was restricted to does, the harvest ratio may come close to 35% needed to keep the population in check.
 
Top Bottom