Not enough deer? - Shoot more deer...

[Woody Williams]

According to this article the more we shoot the more we will have..

www.foxnews.com/science/2014/08/04/deer-numbers-decline-in-some-hunting-areas/?intcmp=obnetwork

Comments.....

[Deleted]

That's what some on here say about coyotes. I don't buy it. Especially not the deer.

[shouldernuke]

Honestly where do they come up with crap!! A deer is nothing like say a coyote they will raise maybe 6-8 pups with one parent a doe may have 1-2 fawns maybe .These people need to stop hard selling the mass killing of deer .I think most hunters are on to the BS of it by now.

QDMA and their shoot every doe you can mantra is the enemy to every deer hunting sportsman in this country .They are firmly in bed with Farm Bureau In most states they are one of QDMAs top financial supporters and sponsors at their big time events .

[swilk]

QDMA is shoot every doe you can?

[boonechaser]

Think our president read this article and thought. Put more people on welfare and less people will end up being on welfare. Make's perfect sense.

[lawrencecountyhunter]

Pretty simple to me..  out west, where herds are managed in relatively small game management units rather than statewide, fish and game agencies use tag #s to either increase or decrease herd numbers.  Too many deer?  They increase doe tags, and numbers nearly always go down.  Not enough deer?  They cut doe tags and numbers generally rebound.

[hankhunter]

Thats what they said about the buffalo. I know how that turned out.

[36fan]

It seems they are saying thin the population, make improvements to the habitat, then let the herd return. It sounds like a plausible plan in the long run, but defiantly not in the short term.

[oldhoyt]

As deer populations grow beyond the habitat's optimal carrying capacity, the habitat becomes increasingly stressed. Stressed habitats may support a high number of deer, but you're teetering on the edge of a crash that could be the result of any number of factors such as a hard winter, disease, etc. I give credit to a manager that recognizes that the habitat is indeed stressed, and decides to do something BEFORE the inevitable crash.

The most logical thing to do in situations where the manager cannot directly improve the habitat (not possible when most land is privately owned) is to allow hunters to remove the stress (deer, particularly does). Then you let the habitat recover (continue to let hunters remove deer over several seasons). Once your habitat has recovered, allow the deer population to grow back to optimal carrying capacity.

Of course, this is not an overnight fix, and hunters will inevitably complain that they don't see the numbers of deer they did in the "good old days", but there's nothing unsound about this approach.

[lawrencecountyhunter]

Except that the author of this article is arguing that this concept should be applied in areas where there are already few deer.  If there are already low deer numbers, the habitat shouldn't be "stressed."

Quality Deer Management Association ... published an article authored by John Donoughe and Mike Wolf that demonstrates the best course of action when deer numbers decline is often to blast away at the critters.

No doubt thinning overpopulated deer herds will allow overbrowsed habitat to recover.  However, if you were to follow the advice of this article, you would be constantly "blasting away" at does.  That's what we're supposed to do when numbers are too high, right?  Also when deer numbers are too low?  Which is it?  Just doesn't add up.
  

[ridgerunner]

Sounds like the logic being used everywhere today, especially in Washington DC..good is bad, bad is good...it's a disease. Want a better America? Let's criminal, gang members and disease in the Country...Want more jobs force people on welfare...want more deer, kill more deer..I guess if I want less grass in my yard I need to quit mowing it too.

[oldhoyt]

Aug 14, 2014 10:52:54 GMT -5 lawrencecountyhunter said:

Except that the author of this article is arguing that this concept should be applied in areas where there are already few deer.  If there are already low deer numbers, the habitat shouldn't be "stressed."

Quality Deer Management Association ... published an article authored by John Donoughe and Mike Wolf that demonstrates the best course of action when deer numbers decline is often to blast away at the critters.

No doubt thinning overpopulated deer herds will allow overbrowsed habitat to recover.  However, if you were to follow the advice of this article, you would be constantly "blasting away" at does.  That's what we're supposed to do when numbers are too high, right?  Also when deer numbers are too low?  Which is it?  Just doesn't add up.
  

More info. would be useful, but truly stressed habitat will not recover quickly. It takes more than a few years.

These are the years that you need to "continue to blast away". Basically you're trying to nearly eliminate deer during those years, or at least keep numbers so low that regeration of the forest understory can take place - a slow process in the absence of forest management, which is out of the deer manager's hands most of the time.