|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 5, 2012 9:04:14 GMT -5
Deer numbers have been way down around me for a few years now but are rebounding. That was when the EHD hit us. Yes, the herd in my area is pretty well back to pre-EHD days..
|
|
|
Post by Ronnie Smith on Jan 5, 2012 9:21:36 GMT -5
Sorta of hard to answer really. We seen a ton of deer this season while bow hunting. More then we have seen in a long time. Once gun season got around, it seems the numbers dropped off a bit here in Jackson County.
|
|
|
Post by rabm03 on Jan 8, 2012 21:14:28 GMT -5
All I can say is the insurance companies got what they wanted!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 11:15:07 GMT -5
I have seen other forums have polls just like this, and sadly most people there also said they were seeing far less Deer now than what they saw just a few years ago.
I wish the DNR would understand this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 11:37:08 GMT -5
So, Bill, just how sad is it that the deer herd is under control? That the goals of most game agencies are being met? That road kills are down? That farm complaints are down? And that most people can still kill ALL the deer that they want? That more mature bucks are being taken then ever before? I bet the DNR wishes that hunters would understand this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 12:08:38 GMT -5
In many areas people simply shoot too many Does. People are brainwashed into thinking they should shoot tons of Does every season. However, many hunters shoot Does, withouth taking into consideration factors such as how many does the surrounding land owners/hunters are shooting every year, and how much food/habitat is available in your area. As a result some areas recieve too much Doe harvest, and other areas recieve too little Doe harvest. The Natural Carrying Capacity of the land can easily support more Deer in most areas, however the Social carrying capacity usually can't in most places. IMO It makes for a boring hunt, when you sit all day and are lucky to see 1 doe, especially when just a few years ago you could sit in the same tree and see 5 to 10 deer per morning, lol So, Bill, just how sad is it that the deer herd is under control? That the goals of most game agencies are being met? That road kills are down? That farm complaints are down? And that most people can still kill ALL the deer that they want? That more mature bucks are being taken then ever before? I bet the DNR wishes that hunters would understand this?
|
|
|
Post by Boilermaker on Jan 12, 2012 12:12:33 GMT -5
Doe numbers were a little down during season but I've seen several large groups of 20+ deer since firearms is over. I saw 5 different bucks this year...last year I saw 1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 12:14:11 GMT -5
And the Bag limits in every state are based on a flawed Science. IMO
Consider the following: I would say that probably 95% of private land in Indiana, has never been stepped foot on by a Biologist or DNR staff member.
Nobody knows how many Deer are poached every year in IN.
Nobody knows how many Deer die of natural Causes each day/year in IN.
Nobody knows how many Deer leave, and enter IN from surrounding states each day.
With all of these variables being said, Nobody, not even the Biologist have a clue about what the IN Deer population is.
Most hunters/ farmers know far more about their own land, and the wildlife numbers on their land than any Biologist, especially if you consider that probably 95% of IN Private Land has never been stepped foot on by a DNR Staff Member or biologist lol.
So these bag limits are based off of Deer population estimates that are not accurate.
Sadly this is the case in every state in America.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 12:20:39 GMT -5
So, Bill, just how sad is it that the deer herd is under control? That the goals of most game agencies are being met? That road kills are down? That farm complaints are down? And that most people can still kill ALL the deer that they want? That more mature bucks are being taken then ever before? I bet the DNR wishes that hunters would understand this? One big reason why more Mature Bucks are taken these days is because Hunters simply have much more effective and better hunting equipment. Trail Cams are also a major reason so many big Bucks are taken these days in every state. Perhaps if everyone had a Trail Camera many years ago, then many more Trophy Bucks would have been taken years ago also IMO. I do think the 1 Buck Rule is both Indiana, and Kentucky is great. But, I would like to see the Doe numbers increase in certain areas effected by Blue Toungue, EHD and over hunting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 12:24:02 GMT -5
How do all of you feel about the Lower Doe Numbers in your area ?
We have an Unlimited Doe Limit here in Zone 1 in Kentucky.
But, I would like to see the Doe numbers increase slightly in my area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 12:50:46 GMT -5
Hate to hijack this thread, but to base deer numbers on untrained hunters visual sighting would be a serious mistake. Who knows if you've had a bath in months, or how good you hunt, and if you can't sit still or whatever reason that deer may be avoiding your sight?
I'd much rather have the population prediction based on science, which you say is flawed, yet it's back up by most every WT deer state using it. Models normally are based on harvest, which you would predict that most of the factors are consant from one year to the next, so should be the harvest. If the harvest drops drasticly, then the deer herd would be considered down. If it's a slight downturn, it could be simply just a rainy day on one of the weekends that cause it. The effects of EHD is long over with in Ky. So that is not a factor in why you don't see any deer.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 12, 2012 13:55:43 GMT -5
Timex, I'd agree that our anecdotal analysis of the numbers is very unscientific. I would just argue that basing the current population estimate on last year's kill numbers is hardly a scientific method either, and that seems to be the primary info the state uses and has for a long time.
If a hunter sits in a stand opening day and has a dozen deer pass within range of whatever he's using, he'll probably take one and maybe two. For most of us, that's about all we want, and if we hunt the rest of the season it will only be for that real wall-hanger (assuming our only buck tag wasn't used on opening day).
If, on the other hand, we sit all that day and several more before even seeing a deer, and end up only having three or four pass within range all season, we'll likely still take two.
Combine that with the additional seasons, tools, and weapons that have been added, all of which should have added to the kill numbers, and he fact that we didn't again set a new record last year is actually a more serious sign of a reduction in numbers than it would appear.
IMO, any drop in the numbers actually out there would not be reflected by a drop of equal percentage in the harvest numbers, being disguised by the extra time and effort required to take our desired personal goals.
I think when balancing the two unscientific means of guessing the deer numbers, the percentage of responses expressing a considerable and in many cases drastic reduction in sightings by experienced hunters in their home areas has to bear lots of weight.
I haven't heard of anyone finding any dead or diseased deer this season down in my area, but have seen some indication that there has also been an outbreak of EHD this year further north. Haven't seen a lot on that and don't know how much it might figure into the reports here. It would seem to fit with the apparent spottiness of the shortages of expected deer sightings, as EHD typically may wipe out most of a herd in one drainage and not affect the next. And, we've had the conditions that would produce an EHD outbreak again in much of the state, with a wet spring followed by a late summer drought that concentrated deer at watering holes during the months when the midges were thickest. Many reports now on extremely heavy losses to EHD on WT in the states futher west and north, particularly MT and the Dakotas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 14:59:54 GMT -5
The method is based on many factors, the main one being harvest. I believe, as do most managers that the rate of illegeal harvest would be fairly constant year in and year out, (as long as all other factors stay the same).
The unkown number of deer that die from EHD are always pre-hunt numbers. Meaning a lot of these deer would have been in the harvest number anyway. So, if you have a EHD event, and the harvest remains the same or sets a new record or slightly drops, then the EHD event is no factor. If those animals had been in the herd during the hunting season, a large part of them would have been included in the bag.
The only explanation one could have that there is a decline in the deer herd in years when the harvest figure is constant, or only slightly different is that the DNR is cookinng the books on the harvest numbers. I don't see anyone in that dept. with a reason to do that, it certainly would not be for any personal gain.
As northern state herds reach high levels, they will eventually have a major event such as the Milk River EHD hit. Now that it's over, the rebounding deer herd will have some immunity to major outbreaks. But there are some deaths from EHD in nearly every state that has WT deer. States in the south that have been hard hit before, now never even notice them.
Any deer manager will tell you that their fear is a herd that iis out of control, one so large that the fixed number of hunters available can't even begin to control it. They will tell you it's a lot easier to build a deer herd than it is to reduce it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 16:35:59 GMT -5
Actually I see plenty of Bucks here in west KY, I see more Bucks many days than Does. The doe numbers are down, the Buck numbers are up, in fact most KY counties actually produce more Bucks each year than Does. The places I hunt in Brown County IN and Camp Atterbury have lower Doe numbers now. I hunted at Camp Atterbury for 38 years, and the Deer harvest there is much lower today, than it used to be. I often wonder if people manipulate data to show an increase in harvest, when in fact the harvest may have actually went down. There was an entire thread on this subject on another forum, most agreed with me, lol Hate to hijack this thread, but to base deer numbers on untrained hunters visual sighting would be a serious mistake. Who knows if you've had a bath in months, or how good you hunt, and if you can't sit still or whatever reason that deer may be avoiding your sight? I'd much rather have the population prediction based on science, which you say is flawed, yet it's back up by most every WT deer state using it. Models normally are based on harvest, which you would predict that most of the factors are consant from one year to the next, so should be the harvest. If the harvest drops drasticly, then the deer herd would be considered down. If it's a slight downturn, it could be simply just a rainy day on one of the weekends that cause it. The effects of EHD is long over with in Ky. So that is not a factor in why you don't see any deer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 16:38:37 GMT -5
As of now 61% of people who have responded to this Poll are now seeing Less Deer. I take them seriously. These people do know more about the Deer numbers on their land, than any Biologist. I know more about the Deer numbers and population trends on my land than any Biologist does. Like I said before, probably 95% of Private land in Indiana, and Kentucky has never been stepped foot on by a Biologist. With this being said, the average farmers and hunters actually know more about their own land, and it's wildlife populations than the DNR.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 16:54:08 GMT -5
Actually, Bill, I've seen most of your posts on Kyhunting.com and very few people agree with you on anything? lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 17:17:39 GMT -5
LOL, I would have to agree with you on that, LOL Or at least sometimes anyway, lol ;D I wondered how you got my name, Yep I am on KY Hunting a lot. I have posted this same question there before, and over half of the responders said they were seeing less Deer. Are you on KY Hunting also ? Actually, Bill, I've seen most of your posts on Kyhunting.com and very few people agree with you on anything? lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 17:17:43 GMT -5
Bill you are correct that game managers do no micro manage the deer herd, hence do not need to walk every inch of the county to predict deer numbers. It's quite possible that deer numbers can be down in one part of the county, yet have too many in another part, and still fit the mode for a 4 or 8 classifacation. Landowners need to manage their own lands.
That said, it's nearly impossible for you to say that you have no does, but plenty of bucks, being that it takes a doe to bring life to a buck, I don't know any other way. 1 to 1 sex ratio, remember?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 17:28:10 GMT -5
The 1 Buck to 1 Doe ratio is unatural IMO It leaves no room for EHD, overhunting, or disease. I think humans want a 1 buck to 1 doe ratio. Humans want less does, because they think it will lead to a more intense Rut. I think there are naturally supposed to be more Does than Bucks. Does typically live longer than Bucks, so of course there will be more Does in most places. Imagine if there were more bucks than Does. Than there would be less does to breed each year, and many Bucks would not get a chance to breed each year, therefore the Deer numbers would fall drastically. So that is why there are not supposed to be more Bucks. Since there are more Does, that is a good thing, that means there are more Does to breed, more Bucks get a chance to breed and spread their genetics each year. So I think it's good to have more Does than Bucks. IMO Bill you are correct that game managers do no micro manage the deer herd, hence do not need to walk every inch of the county to predict deer numbers. It's quite possible that deer numbers can be down in one part of the county, yet have too many in another part, and still fit the mode for a 4 or 8 classifacation. Landowners need to manage their own lands. That said, it's nearly impossible for you to say that you have no does, but plenty of bucks, being that it takes a doe to bring life to a buck, I don't know any other way. 1 to 1 sex ratio, remember?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 17:31:38 GMT -5
Of course the problem is many people don't realize this, and even if they live in an area with low doe numbers, they will still shoot a ton of does each season, because they think they are supposed to. Bill you are correct that game managers do no micro manage the deer herd, hence do not need to walk every inch of the county to predict deer numbers. It's quite possible that deer numbers can be down in one part of the county, yet have too many in another part, and still fit the mode for a 4 or 8 classifacation. Landowners need to manage their own lands. That said, it's nearly impossible for you to say that you have no does, but plenty of bucks, being that it takes a doe to bring life to a buck, I don't know any other way. 1 to 1 sex ratio, remember?
|
|