Georgias deer herd by the numbers and by those who know

JB0704 said:

No, that is not what I want. I am not a biologist, so my opinion is about worthless on the subject, but I personally would like to see a more targeted approach like Pennsylvania's or Marlyland's. I know each system has it's problems, but what they do makes more sense to me because regions are controlled much more specifically.

From what I understand public opinion trends towards simplicity in the regs, so I am probably in the minority on that point.

I don't want to punish everybody, instead, I would like the regs to protect everybody equally.

Perhaps your right.

Click to expand...

I can see where you are upset if there has been a problem with overharvest in the area you hunt. I have seen the same thing-gross overharvest on a small property. The property that ajoins ours is 250 acres-one year the family that owns if took 16 deer off of it. There were 3 boys that were hunting it-and they were trigger happy. It was not good for the local deer population, but after a few year of going crazy like that they chilled out.

I agree that the current regs. leave it so the chance for overharvest exists. Like allot of others have said people are going to break the law no matter what the regs. are. The State Goverment in general and in particular the DNR has suffered from massive budget cuts-there really is no money to hire the mass # of wardens which would be necessary to regulate things as you desire. Also I can guarantee you if people had to start applying for doe tags on a county per county bases you'd hear allot more griping going on. For people who hunt in several or many different counties things would get confusing.

As others have said there is no solution that is going to make everyone happy, but with the way things are set up if you hunt in an area in which the deer population doesn't suit you- see if you may be able to find an area which is more in line with what you are wanting to get out of your hunting. The other option is to try to gather all of the people who hunt your area togather and have a meeting hosted by a DNR representative to discuss objectives and then work out a plan to work toward achieving them.

imo, the main problem with the 12 deer limit, season long doe days is that it gives the perception of an overaubundance of deer. when that perception is given, more folks are apt to harvest alot of deer, poach deer and maybe even just leave them laying there, shoot them out of season, ect ect. if you are needing folks to be good stewards of the land, its best not to give them the impression they can run rampant with their harvesting of deer.

for those that say its neccesary so everyone has the chance to manage their heard correctly, just how many folks do you know harvesting 10 does each becuase they are over ridden with deer? and if you say the farmers need you to do it because of the crops, well they are already getting the permits for that.

i would think if someone is killing 10-12 deer in georgia, most likely on average that person is doing for the wrong reason not right interms of herd management.

JB0704 said:

I am trying to get my own lease this year. Either way I am still at the mercy of my neighbors. Past clubs have all been responsible folks, but you can only control what you have access to.....

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, ever heard of a QDM Cooperative?

JB0704 said:

......


I respect your wisdom here. And will from now forward believe that a reduction in doe days might be necessary in targeted areas which have experienced over harvest. And that makes sense, really. Back when there were doe days, even though the people I hunted with were not really "ethical," nobody ever shot a doe except on those days it was legal.....

Click to expand...

And that is something WRD did in some counties in Northeast Georgia last fall. For one, Franklin County had limited doe days this past season.

Looking at GON Truck-Buck officially scored buck entries for 5 of the past 6 years at least appears to support this statement in the article referenced in the OP...

We now have a slightly lower overall deer population, and that means more trophy bucks, but less deer sightings and total harvest too. There are hunters who are happy with the real possibility of seeing and tagging a true trophy, while there are also sportsmen who are dissatisfied that they are not seeing as many deer.

Click to expand...

....
The average B&C score of all GON Truck-Buck bucks actually scored has risen, statewide as well as when the state is broken into the North and South Zones. Almost every Wildlife Management Unit (WMU's, 9 in all) indicate the same trend.

Charts below...
Top chart is statewide, average score by year of all Truck-Buck bucks scored in that respective year.
Second chart is by Northern and Southern Zone...

If we hunters are responsible for our own. What good is the wrd? Why even pay em to stick around.? Use that money to just pay county law incase they have to catch somebody. That's who you have to call if you want action nowdays anyhow.

A couple of things with your post......

redwards said:

Looking at GON Truck-Buck officially scored buck entries for 5 of the past 6 years at least appears to support this statement in the article referenced in the OP...

We now have a slightly lower overall deer population, and that means more trophy bucks, but less deer sightings and total harvest too. There are hunters who are happy with the real possibility of seeing and tagging a true trophy, while there are also sportsmen who are dissatisfied that they are not seeing as many deer.

Click to expand...

The average B&C score of all GON Truck-Buck bucks actually scored has risen, statewide as well as when the state is broken into the North and South Zones. Almost every Wildlife Management Unit (WMU's, 9 in all) indicate the same trend.

Click to expand...

1. "True trophy" is very subjective. The "truest trophy" I ever killed was a button buck....my first deer ever. I have shot several nice bucks over the years, but nothing ever came close to that one.

2. We all have differing objectives when we hunt. For me, at present time, I am trying everything I can to get my kid on deer. So, less deer / bigger bucks is not necessarily a trade I currently want to make. Selfish? Sure. But so is the idea of county specific QDM. Some folks want it, other's don't. Everybody has an opinion on the subject. Somebody has to be the "loser" when it comes dow to a vote. But I am convinced there is a middle ground which would work better than where we are.

3. I believe a little bit of the increase in deer size is the taboo which exists in shooting little bucks now. It was apparent to me in the last few seasons that folks had no problem "thinning the herd" by shooting does, but nobody was shooting the spikes and 4-ptrs (which, to me anyway, is a good thing too).

redwards said:

And that is something WRD did in some counties in Northeast Georgia last fall. For one, Franklin County had limited doe days this past season.

Click to expand...

I was aware of what happened in Franklin County, and that was very encouraging to me. I personally would like to see a more aggressive use of doe days.

redwards said:

Not necessarily, ever heard of a QDM Cooperative?

Click to expand...

Yes. And it is a very good idea. But I gave an example earlier as to how that good idea can be exploited an thwarted by one bad apple. Again, the smaller the lease you have, the more vulnerable you are to these things. If everybody in one area has larger areas they control, then that little area can be managed very effectively. The more different property managers exist within a local area, the more likely it is to be abused because of the additional variables (potential "trigger happy" hunters).

The "co-op" concept seems to me like a group of hunters "doing something" to correct a problem, or avoid a potential problem which exists because of the current regulations. I know folks will always break the law, but we still have laws for a reason. It acts as a deterrent to behavior. If just a few folks quit shooting every deer they see because the law no longer allows it, then we have a net positive for everybody.

F.A.R.R. said:

I agree that the current regs. leave it so the chance for overharvest exists. Like allot of others have said people are going to break the law no matter what the regs. are. The State Goverment in general and in particular the DNR has suffered from massive budget cuts-there really is no money to hire the mass # of wardens which would be necessary to regulate things as you desire. Also I can guarantee you if people had to start applying for doe tags on a county per county bases you'd hear allot more griping going on. For people who hunt in several or many different counties things would get confusing..

Click to expand...

I appreciate your comments. But would like to add that there is another way of looking at this. On one hand, folks are always going to be unethical regardless of the regulations. Ethical and legal are not always the same thing. These regs legalize what is often unethical.

And, folks will always gripe, my position in this thread is all the proof we need for that

F.A.R.R. said:

As others have said there is no solution that is going to make everyone happy, but with the way things are set up if you hunt in an area in which the deer population doesn't suit you- see if you may be able to find an area which is more in line with what you are wanting to get out of your hunting. The other option is to try to gather all of the people who hunt your area togather and have a meeting hosted by a DNR representative to discuss objectives and then work out a plan to work toward achieving them.

Click to expand...

I guess the risk is the "abused" regions will gradually outnumer the well managed regions, and frustrated hunters will continue to congregate in those well regulated regions leading to abuse. Kind of like what I am doing now by looking for another lease.

The co-op, while a very good and effective idea, is only as good as the actions of those who join it. You and I can agree as to what a "shooter" is, but in the end, it is between you and the lord what you pull off of your land. It's an honor system. I have read and heard many good things about it, but I have also heard folks say they are only after a big buck, and show up at camp with a doe and two yearlings in the bed of their truck.

JB0704 said:

A couple of things with your post......



1. "True trophy" is very subjective. The "truest trophy" I ever killed was a button buck....my first deer ever. I have shot several nice bucks over the years, but nothing ever came close to that one.

2. We all have differing objectives when we hunt. For me, at present time, I am trying everything I can to get my kid on deer. So, less deer / bigger bucks is not necessarily a trade I currently want to make. Selfish? Sure. But so is the idea of county specific QDM. Some folks want it, other's don't. Everybody has an opinion on the subject. Somebody has to be the "loser" when it comes dow to a vote. But I am convinced there is a middle ground which would work better than where we are.

3. I believe a little bit of the increase in deer size is the taboo which exists in shooting little bucks now. It was apparent to me in the last few seasons that folks had no problem "thinning the herd" by shooting does, but nobody was shooting the spikes and 4-ptrs (which, to me anyway, is a good thing too).

Click to expand...

I don't think many can argue with the point you make here.

Every hunter should be the judge of what a "trophy" is to them and shouldn't be judged by others according to their standard.

With kids hunting an area with high densities helps. For kids it's even harder if they are trying to get there first deer in a QDM county. It's hard to explain to a youngster who has not so patiently waited on stand for a long time that they can't shoot a buck thats broad side at 30 yards because its rack isn't big enough. If enough of that happens they loose interest, and we need them to stay interseted and involved in hunting.

JB0704 said:

I appreciate your comments. But would like to add that there is another way of looking at this. On one hand, folks are always going to be unethical regardless of the regulations. Ethical and legal are not always the same thing. These regs legalize what is often unethical.

And, folks will always gripe, my position in this thread is all the proof we need for that



I guess the risk is the "abused" regions will gradually outnumer the well managed regions, and frustrated hunters will continue to congregate in those well regulated regions leading to abuse. Kind of like what I am doing now by looking for another lease.

The co-op, while a very good and effective idea, is only as good as the actions of those who join it. You and I can agree as to what a "shooter" is, but in the end, it is between you and the lord what you pull off of your land. It's an honor system. I have read and heard many good things about it, but I have also heard folks say they are only after a big buck, and show up at camp with a doe and two yearlings in the bed of their truck.

Click to expand...

Some pretty good logic here too.

NCHillbilly said:

How many more mounted dead deer heads do you really need, anyway?

Click to expand...

3 or 4 more should 'bout do me proud.

JB0704 said:

No, that is not what I want. I am not a biologist, so my opinion is about worthless on the subject, but I personally would like to see a more targeted approach like Pennsylvania's or Marlyland's. I know each system has it's problems, but what they do makes more sense to me because regions are controlled much more specifically.

Click to expand...

But as the narrative in the popular guide says, WRD can't do that and meet the expectations of all deer hunters. Thus, they defer to the deer hunters to do the right thing and take personal responsibility for their actions, a novel concept. They should be applauded.

JB0704 said:

Perhaps your right.

Click to expand...

You know it's so.