Interesting, albeit rather obvious, article on the deer overpopulation

I watched an interesting show on the netflix called the private life of deer. A big takeaway is that they were nearly eradicated during the depression but have made a huge comeback. They estimate the numbers at or higher than when Columbus accidentally discovered America, back before there was a single road or building made of concrete and almost no humans on the continent, so nearly the whole country was habitat. This is the result of not only conservation efforts, but of agricultural practices and our tendency to do things like unintentionally plant lots of food for deer.

Agriculture has changed. The small farms with small fields that could be worked with a team of mules, or a small tractor were much more conducive to game like rabbit and quail than deer. They were usually separated by small woodlots between fields. The big open fields that are worked by monster tractors don't attract the same type of game animals.

Growing up in North GA almost no one even owned a "deer rifle". But everyone had a shotgun and quail was king. Rabbit and squirrel were taken if the opportunity came up. Seeing a deer was big news. Starting in the 1970's the transformation was slowly taking place. Most of the deer in GA were stocked from animals trapped in Texas or Wisconsin.

I can't remember the last quail I saw. Rabbit aren't common, but squirrel are about the same. Turkey were pretty rare back in my youth, but were a big thing for a while. They seem to be declining in numbers.

Coyote was something I only saw on TV chasing the roadrunner until just a few years ago. I believe the rise in coyote has had a big impact on quail, rabbit and turkey as much as changing agriculture. Deer and black bear have exploded in numbers

My father grew-up in south central Kansas. When he was a kid in the 40's, it was a big news story when a deer was seen in the local area. Now the local newspaper reports multiple vehicle/deer collisions per week.

About the only effective way to deal with this is to a.)open up bag limits for deer across the board b.)open archery only hunting seasons in suburban areas and c.)make it easier for hunters to donate game meat to food banks, shelters, and schools because a hunter is going to stop killing game once his and his family's/friend's freezers are full, no matter how big the limits are.

I read that yesterday, too.
Not sure if the authors actually talked to any wildlife biologists. The tone was very much one that the deer "had moved into the suburbs" (to stay). Which may not comport with the sorts of range deer will travel (much like how people think their cat--with a natural hunting range of about a mile-- will stay in "their" backyard).

At least the authors did not call for the removal of natural features like creekbeds and the like (the "edge" habitats they yammered on about) which conduct the deer to/from the suburbs.

The article probably could have put a bit more effort into how deer are as prolific as rabbits, and need huge amounts of predation to stay "in balance." Having seen towns like Lakeway and Del Lago Vista in Texas become infested with corn-fed deer, the concerns about having too many deer and no easy way to cope with them were valid.

The assertion that there was no possible way to use firearms to cull nuisance deer was a bit "knee jerk." As was the supposition that archery was "safer" for humans but less reliable for culling.

The number greenies protesting was no surprise, nor their vitriol--these people have no clue about most things. In these case, it's seldom 3 to 5 deer strolling about, but troops of a dozen or more, usually with assertive "alpha" does and bucks.

Probably the answer for the "gone urban" deer is collecting them for "ranching"--but that would also require some changes in meat regulations, too.

There's one state that I absolutely will not speed in and it has nothing to do with tickets or heavy law enforcement (rarely even see a trooper)....in fact I mostly drive well UNDER the limit during darkness. That's West Virginia, where I grew up. In the 40's/50's deer were all but non existent and I never saw a wild turkey till moving to Florida in my late teens. I've maintained contact with folks I'm close to and try to make the first week of their season yearly.............but I DO NOT chance that collision issue and even so I've had to dodge 'em on the interstate as well as the backroads...........I remain amazed at the recovery of that species in that region. It really is a great example of good management practice and I commend the DNR there!

D.B. Cooper said:

About the only effective way to deal with this is to a.)open up bag limits for deer across the board b.)open archery only hunting seasons in suburban areas and c.)make it easier for hunters to donate game meat to food banks, shelters, and schools because a hunter is going to stop killing game once his and his family's/friend's freezers are full, no matter how big the limits are.

Click to expand...

While this sounds like an easy solution, and it's what we do in our state, it is not very effective. Comes down to hunting access where the deer are. Last year I got 6 antlerless tags for free along with my two buck tags...so did everyone else in the county. The year before it was 8. While I could shoot that many, I don't. Nor do most other land owners. Most of us actually plant food for deer to increase their numbers. Most of us pass on bucks until they are mature. If we do shoot does, we only shoot what we can eat. You can't donate venison because of CWD unless it has been processed by a certified processor and that will cost you upward of $100. The majority of the deer are on private land. While we have lots of public land, deer numbers there are not anything like what is on private land for obvious reasons. Odds of getting permission to hunt private land is like winning the lottery. Add to the fact that deer hunter numbers are falling at a good rate, I don't see things changing at all.

We call deer "field rats". They eat any tasty shrub or small fruit tree to death, even those planted as landscaping next to your house. I refuse to ride motorcycle any more at night or dusk/dawn because of the high incidence of Deer collisions. You see fields full of deer out even during the day. Deer have adapted to us and adapted well. They know where they are safe and they know where they can find food......around humans. Living easily to an age of three or four is a positive thing for a deer, even if there is a small chance of being shot.

daniel craig said:

I used to think the answer was incentivizing land owners to let people hint their property

Click to expand...

Good luck with that. My family owns acreage, and I wouldn't let others hunt on it. Even if the state passed a law absolving me of all liability for injury or paid for liability insurance costs. Even if they added to that an annual stipend. You just never know who you're going to get and what they're going to do to your land. I don't want to be sued for someone else's accident, and I don't want to clean up other people's trash or have tire ruts in the land for years to come.

daniel craig said:

either letting people sell the meat or make a state food bank because I don't think that the culling method would go over very well with people in the state.

Click to expand...

Letting people sell the meat is a baaaaaad plan. While it would probably work in the short run, my fear is that you'd eventually be back to the era of market hunters harvesting game to near extinction. And you just know that, once a law like that gets established, it won't be easily removed.

Donating to a food bank is a better plan, but there is too much regulation/red tape involved in that, so no one will do it.

FL-NC said:

Columbus accidentally discovered America,

Click to expand...

Columbus never set foot in America.

troy fairweather said:

Columbus never set foot in America.

Click to expand...

Fine, the new world- not to be confused with any other worlds in which we may find ourselves occasionally.

troy fairweather said:

Columbus never set foot in America.

Click to expand...

....nuttin' to do with the topic at hand. But correct.

FL-NC said:

back before there was a single road or building made of concrete and almost no humans on the continent, so nearly the whole country was habitat.

Click to expand...

....Exactly to do with the topic at hand. But incorrect.

Deer are "fringe" animals. They do not do well in dense forests or open plains, which is what most of what America was at the time. They did well where forest fires burnt off large portions of the old growth forests and in small areas of natural edges, but those areas were far and few. They also had to depend solely on Mother Nature to provide for them and in the scenario of two-three severe winters in a row, most browse was long gone. Add a poor fall acorn crop into the mixture and there would be huge die-offs. Deer populations exploded as folks moved west and logged off the land, creating edges all over the place. Whether it was logged for farmland or just the wood, the new growth created was a boon to deer. Commercial hunting along with unregulated subsistence hunting kept deer numbers low. Wasn't until deer hunting actually became a "sport", animals were looked at as trophies and states realized the esthetic and financial potential for regulating populations that numbers increased dramatically. still the once constant pressure from hunting made deer wary of man and nocturnal. As a kid, the southern agricultural area of my state held very few if any deer. Most hunters went North to the big woods and the logging areas to find deer. But deer adapted and realized where year round food was found. Now it is exactly the opposite. Whether it be ag crops, or just yard landscaping. Deer used to avoid urbanized areas, but now realize there a a safe haven and a constant source of food. The commotion of people and traffic no longer bother them. I doubt if we will ever see a change to that.

Again, access to private land, whether it be on a farmers 460 acres or a suburbanite's 1 acre is going to be the issue controlling deer numbers. Unless there is a huge change in our society or a global food shortage, the majority of private land owners, for various legitimate reasons, are going to say "no", to hunters they don't know. Exceptions would be youth and handicapped hunters.

daniel craig said:

And I think at least for my state we could benefit from changing around the seasons. Gun season in my opinion should be during the peak rut and people should be incentivized taking does. I think well I haven't thought this out too far that we should also change the way we do tags so that they're usable over a wider area.

Click to expand...

No, the solution would have to be the exact opposite. Deer need to be managed on a much more local scale. Unfortunately, that is probably cost prohibitive for the state. I have property in NY management unit 9T. The unit is heavily forested, with little agriculture and harsh winter weather. An extremely bad winter over 20 years ago decimated the deer herd and doe tags have been very limited since...but on my property we have plenty of deer because our property and thousands of acres around us have been logged over the past 20 years providing much better food supply for the deer than is typical for the unit. We are severely and unnecessarily restricted in our hunting on our property, but if DEC increased the number of doe tags in unit 9T the deer herd overall would crater.

daniel craig said:

And I think at least for my state we could benefit from changing around the seasons. Gun season in my opinion should be during the peak rut and people should be incentivized taking does. I think well I haven't thought this out too far that we should also change the way we do tags so that they're usable over a wider area.

Click to expand...

Gun season during peak rut will just lead to a year or two of big bucks being taken. It's not hard to shoot does if they're on the property and it's does that you have to kill if you want to reduce population.

buck460XVR said:

While this sounds like an easy solution, and it's what we do in our state, it is not very effective. Comes down to hunting access where the deer are. Last year I got 6 antlerless tags for free along with my two buck tags...so did everyone else in the county. The year before it was 8. While I could shoot that many, I don't. Nor do most other land owners. Most of us actually plant food for deer to increase their numbers. Most of us pass on bucks until they are mature. If we do shoot does, we only shoot what we can eat. You can't donate venison because of CWD unless it has been processed by a certified processor and that will cost you upward of $100. The majority of the deer are on private land. While we have lots of public land, deer numbers there are not anything like what is on private land for obvious reasons. Odds of getting permission to hunt private land is like winning the lottery. Add to the fact that deer hunter numbers are falling at a good rate, I don't see things changing at all.

We call deer "field rats". They eat any tasty shrub or small fruit tree to death, even those planted as landscaping next to your house. I refuse to ride motorcycle any more at night or dusk/dawn because of the high incidence of Deer collisions. You see fields full of deer out even during the day. Deer have adapted to us and adapted well. They know where they are safe and they know where they can find food......around humans. Living easily to an age of three or four is a positive thing for a deer, even if there is a small chance of being shot.

Click to expand...

Around here there are processors that will donate their labor processing if you donate the deer. Meat goes to FoodLink food pantry.

D.B. Cooper said:

Good luck with that. My family owns acreage, and I wouldn't let others hunt on it. Even if the state passed a law absolving me of all liability for injury or paid for liability insurance costs. Even if they added to that an annual stipend. You just never know who you're going to get and what they're going to do to your land. I don't want to be sued for someone else's accident, and I don't want to clean up other people's trash or have tire ruts in the land for years to come.



Letting people sell the meat is a baaaaaad plan. While it would probably work in the short run, my fear is that you'd eventually be back to the era of market hunters harvesting game to near extinction. And you just know that, once a law like that gets established, it won't be easily removed.

Donating to a food bank is a better plan, but there is too much regulation/red tape involved in that, so no one will do it.

Click to expand...

NY does absolve landowners of liability if you allow access (as long as you don't charge for it), but I still do not allow others to hunt (or ride ATVs or whatever) on my property because there are unfortunately to many idiots and jerks out there. Unfortunately, by BIL who owns the property next to mine, does allow others to hunt, typically young folks (not kids - young adults). I understand his reasoning...landowners let him hunt and ride his atv when he was a kid and he wants to pay that kindness back. But it bites us in the a** every couple of years.

NY is famous for red tape and over-regulation yet it is very easy to donate venison to the food bank. If a sportsmans' association wanted to make it happen in your state, I bet they could.

daniel craig said:

We need to take more deer, Bucks, does, fawns etc. More deer in general.

Click to expand...

I thought your OP argued that we should liberalize hunting regulations and seasons to reduce deer populations. Taking more bucks will have a negligible impact on deer populations. In fact, paradoxically, taking more bucks can increase deer population by freeing up food for breeding females.

daniel craig said:

Liberalize? I think we need to take more of all kinds of deer. I'd be a fan of "earn a buck" programs too.

Click to expand...

Yes, the word liberalize means to make things less strict. You want longer seasons, gun season to overlap the rut, doe tags that can be used in any WMU, etc. Many of the things you want either wouldn't work to reduce the herd (gun season during the rut) or would make herd management more difficult (doe tags used anywhere). Earn a buck could work, but it would have to be limited to the WMUs where deer are overpopulated. There are many WMUs in NY where the herd is not as populous as sportsman would like.

Ever consider that because the philosophies of trophy hunting (QDM) are being increasingly more implemented by more hunters, that it is causing the rise in the general population of deer as well?

IOW, if one were to hold out for older deer all the time, the younger deer population can increase in number higher towards the point of ecological sustainability for the entire herd.

Add to the fact there is less land access, presumably fewer hunters, however, of those hunters, they are hunting fewerand smaller areas (ie. public land), and large tracts of private land being pay to play (ie. hunt clubs who also generally foster a QDM approach), it is little wonder the deer population is exploding.

This method works great for harvesting older deer and bigger bucks but it causes the overall population to increase. Once again, overall population increase is great for QDM. It’s not that great for population management though.

earlthegoat2 said:

Ever consider that because the philosophies of trophy hunting (QDM) are being increasingly more implemented by more hunters, that it is causing the rise in the general population of deer as well?

IOW, if one were to hold out for older deer all the time, the younger deer population can increase in number higher towards the point of ecological sustainability for the entire herd.

Add to the fact there is less land access, presumably fewer hunters, however, of those hunters, they are hunting fewerand smaller areas (ie. public land), and large tracts of private land being pay to play (ie. hunt clubs who also generally foster a QDM approach), it is little wonder the deer population is exploding.

This method works great for harvesting older deer and bigger bucks but it causes the overall population to increase. Once again, overall population increase is great for QDM. It’s not that great for population management though.

Click to expand...

I'm no expert on QDM, but what I've read indicates that part of QDM is in fact maintaining a stable population so that there is enough nutrition to grow big deer. I thought part of QDM is reducing the doe population for that reason. Maybe I'm misremembering?