Deer density/ hard hunting mountain/ easy flats?

[Mr Bya Lungshot]

Just where are the hard mountain hunting lines versus easy flat northern lands lines including deer density ideas along with your answer please.
Somehow I think I’ve usually been huntin east and west right on the edge of never know foothills with a medium herd well in between that of hard hunting and easy to harvest. Asking mainly where are the easy very highly northern populated deer areas versus more northern far less populated rather than anything else. Actually asking seriously before anyone starts. The deer density by county map never helped me any at all.
Maybe you know of better genetics over another spot to compare. Georgia ideas only please and thanks.

 

[Killer Kyle]

In the NE GA regions, the highher ridges of White Co, Union Co, Lumpkin Co, Uppermost Habersham Co, and Towns Co. There are more deer around the settlements and valleys because of the increased edge and pasture habitat. Once you enter the NF and climb higher to 2,500'-4,000' elevation, that's where you will start to encounter the most scarce deer populations. Get above 3,000' elevation, and deer start to become real scarce. A 4,000' elevation buck is a freaking unicorn. A once in a lifetime buck. You will find much of this type of habitat along the Blue Ridge Divide. If you consider the area where the AT runs, much or most of that terrain is where the difficult deer hunting habitat lies 20-40 miles north and south of that trail. Everywhere anywhere near the AT really. All of that is TOUGH deer hunting territory.

 

[Mr Bya Lungshot]

Thank you very much for your response Kkyle.
The AT map does partially give me insight of half of what I was asking. Maybe other folks will chime in about it too.
Now If I could only learn where the large or over populated deer areas are or were just south of there and lower.

I once was at cohutta and while all my hunting partners stayed low, I climbed straight up the steepest area to the top knowing the long drag down would be a slide the whole way. Seen a 110” buck up there right behind me when no one else seen a thing all week. I slid myself down instead much like a waterslide and had a blast. They saw me sliding and I could hear them laughing until I told them what I had seen up there and how much fun it was to slide that far nonstop all the way to camp.

 

[tree cutter 08]

What Kyle said is about spot on. I live about 12 or 13 miles from the high ridge big woods of Chattahoochee wma. We are covered up with deer around the house, population is as good as it can be. As you drive north, the numbers will start to dwindle the closer you get to nf. The outskirts of nf and wmas will hold a few deer but the deeper and higher you go, the less deer.

 

[The mtn man]

Yep, Kyle pretty much summed it up. Anything south of Helen south of dahlonaga, south of Clarksville , that's pretty much the divide.

 

[Mr Bya Lungshot]

Any highly populated deer herds where the hunting for meat is kinda like shootin fish in a barrel to speak of?
I’ll say monroe is about as easy huntin as I’ve seen it but I don’t know of another place with a similar herd where the deer are just about everywhere you look.

Why don’t the deer get stocked again to low density areas from the over populated healthy herds?
Seems like people would want this but it just hasn’t been done in decades. It worked fine then so why not now?
They just shoot and feed the hungry but won’t transport any deer to raise the density in counties with little to zero deer herds. With enough support I think it would happen!

 

[transfixer]

Why don’t the deer get stocked again to low density areas from the over populated healthy herds?
Seems like people would want this but it just hasn’t been done in decades. It worked fine then so why not now?

I posed that same question on the forum a while back, in regards to some of the counties that have too many deer, especially those where firearm hunting isn't allowed, According to our resident state biologist, the state says it is too expensive to try and relocate the deer, and they also say its too hard on them and many of them would not survive the ordeal ?

What I don't understand , is like you mentioned, it was done in the past, and I would think we have better ways of doing things like that now than we had then ? I think it comes down to its not on their priority list, and granted the higher elevation areas don't have enough food/browse to sustain much of a population.

I was posing the question in regards to re-populating some of the counties that receive a lot of hunting pressure.

 

[tree cutter 08]

I read up a good bit on transporting and relocating deer. Seems like the success rate was 80 percent and up. I know its been mentioned about the high cost per deer to do it but I just can't see where it is? What does it cost to have the USDA come in at a golf course or gated community and remove x amount of deer? Why can't they hire the state to trap and transport? Then the cost should be a lot more economical.

 

[Mr Bya Lungshot]

I would think lots of the hunting public are willing to offset the efforts and any and all costs as volunteers by the thousands and in any other way they needed.
If a herd is too big now they send in snipers at night so why not use darts paid for by the more fortunate ones willing to help. Some of the deer obviously survived back when they relocated and released them in the wild then.
So many survived to make the herd what they claim it is today. Some didnt make it but enough did to restore a herd in time.
Now i’m sure a survival percentage would be much higher than ever before. I’m sure the cost isn’t it. Look at what some people spend on hunting just to have a place to go.
Some folk would be proud to respond to relocation efforts.
Even if just a dozen pair lived to breed in a area with none.
Enough people expressing they want it and anything will be accomplished.
Whats the difference in a couple hundred dead deer or a couple hundred spread out every now and again?
I can answer that by saying a great place to hunt. Take em to wma’s or private land who cares as long as WE know they were transported to a place that wants them. Money isn’t the issue and neither is a food source. The issue is no effort put forth toward relocation anymore. Nobody is asking for more tags but every hunter wants another deer to come walking.
Even the non hunters want the relocation instead of paid night snipers. Then after all is said and done every one could make a big difference. It’s the effort that lacking.
If the deer are not fit to eat then put a tag in the ear reading breeder and so be it. Again its only the effort that lacking from all of us.

 

[transfixer]

I read up a good bit on transporting and relocating deer. Seems like the success rate was 80 percent and up. I know its been mentioned about the high cost per deer to do it but I just can't see where it is? What does it cost to have the USDA come in at a golf course or gated community and remove x amount of deer? Why can't they hire the state to trap and transport? Then the cost should be a lot more economical.

If the automobile insurance companies would put money into a fund to relocate deer to less populated areas instead of lining the pockets of our politicians to institute the 10 doe bag limit we have now and keep it in place, then I'm sure it can be done.

Bottom line , State Farm , Allstate, Progressive and the rest would love to see deer on the endangered list ,, because of the money it costs them every year. That's why we have the high bag limits we have, and I believe its why we have the amount of doe days we currently have. The state DNR doesn't care if we have enough deer that everyone can enjoy seeing one when they go into the woods,, as long as we have just enough to keep people trying to hunt them.

 

[beginnersluck]

In the NE GA regions, the highher ridges of White Co, Union Co, Lumpkin Co, Uppermost Habersham Co, and Towns Co. There are more deer around the settlements and valleys because of the increased edge and pasture habitat. Once you enter the NF and climb higher to 2,500'-4,000' elevation, that's where you will start to encounter the most scarce deer populations. Get above 3,000' elevation, and deer start to become real scarce. A 4,000' elevation buck is a freaking unicorn. A once in a lifetime buck. You will find much of this type of habitat along the Blue Ridge Divide. If you consider the area where the AT runs, much or most of that terrain is where the difficult deer hunting habitat lies 20-40 miles north and south of that trail. Everywhere anywhere near the AT really. All of that is TOUGH deer hunting territory.

This...and to further go into it, I hunt a lot of NF land and I've seen plenty of deer, but I can see double that just going down the roads near sundown and look into fields. They are concentrated closer to the agricultural areas for sure. On the other hand, some of the biggest deer that I've seen and heard of have come off of NF land that is really rough terrain. My idea on this is that most of those old ghosts get to enjoy a life a little longer due to lower hunting pressure, less roads to cross and get hit by cars, and less deer density that can affect disease.

 

[j_seph]

Any highly populated deer herds where the hunting for meat is kinda like shootin fish in a barrel to speak of?
I’ll say monroe is about as easy huntin as I’ve seen it but I don’t know of another place with a similar herd where the deer are just about everywhere you look.

Why don’t the deer get stocked again to low density areas from the over populated healthy herds?
Seems like people would want this but it just hasn’t been done in decades. It worked fine then so why not now?
They just shoot and feed the hungry but won’t transport any deer to raise the density in counties with little to zero deer herds. With enough support I think it would happen!

Habitat can only support so many critters then ya add hogs and bears

 

[transfixer]

Relocating deer can be done without losing them also, there are a couple of videos on youtube showing how the deer farms do it. At least one where they tranquilize the deer and transport them in modified cattle trailers. By the time they get to where they are going the deer are fully awake and exit the trailer after the door is open. Seems to me that would be a viable option for reducing the population in some of the state parks and other areas where there are too many? Especially in areas like the Chattahoochee river corridor north of Atlanta. Then release them in areas that receive a lot of hunting pressure, such as wma's that the population isn't up to the carrying capacity of the land.

 

[Gbr5pb]

South Georgia deer wouldn’t be able to live in some of those mountains there legs all the same length

 

[Sixes]

I think relocation would only work with closing of the season for a few years after the relocation and if it were closed, then the population should increase naturally.

If it is not closed, then I do not see it being any different than a put and take trout stream.

Stock the deer, they get shot. Next year stock some more deer and they get shot.

Habitat improvement would be the quickest way to a larger herd. Cut the timber, burn the land and watch nature repopulate the area within a few years

 

[Timberman]

Relocating sounds good in theory until you take into account that areas with low deer populations are that way for a reason...it is low quality habitat.

 

[The mtn man]

Relocating sounds like a good idea, but doesn't solve the issue, why relocate when there's already a deer population? Although small, why close the season when so few are being killed in those areas? Without the habitat, none of the resolutions make since.

 

[northgeorgiasportsman]

If we're going to relocate anything to help our deer herd in the mountains, we need to go out to the Pacific northwest and capture some loggers and relocate them to Appalachia. This would help the herd more than anything.

 

[Buckman18]

Relocating sounds like a good idea, but doesn't solve the issue, why relocate when there's already a deer population? Although small, why close the season when so few are being killed in those areas? Without the habitat, none of the resolutions make since.

This. We need some more cutting to create browse and edge habitat.

 

[transfixer]

I think relocation would only work with closing of the season for a few years after the relocation and if it were closed, then the population should increase naturally.

If it is not closed, then I do not see it being any different than a put and take trout stream.

Stock the deer, they get shot. Next year stock some more deer and they get shot.

I agree with that to an extent, whether all the deer that got relocated would be killed the next season is the question, even though some, or most might be taken the first year, it would resolve the over population issue facing some areas. Especially in the more urban areas where you have deer roaming through subdivisions eating peoples landscaping.

Relocating sounds like a good idea, but doesn't solve the issue, why relocate when there's already a deer population? Although small, why close the season when so few are being killed in those areas? Without the habitat, none of the resolutions make since.

I agree, I've hunted the mountains in my younger days, Cooper Creek, Blue Ridge, Lake Burton, Rich mtn, and Cohutta, not a lot up there to support them, but I'm sure some would be an improvement, even if they ended up staying down in the valleys for the most part.

I think the state should at least attempt it on a trial basis, get the auto insurance companies to pay for it, remove some deer from the urban areas where there are deer that don't get hunted, tag them, vaccinate them, release them out in the boonies somewhere, keep track of everything , and figure out a way to get hunters to report if they harvest one that has a tag on it ? Beats them getting hit by a car doesn't it ?